Orissa Court November 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Amarchand Lakhiram Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT344; [1989]73STC179(Orissa)
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner, a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has challenged the assessment under Section 12(4) for the assessment year 1987-88.2. Facts stated in the writ petition are that the dealer carrying on business in consumer goods in Bolangir as an agent of different reputed companies submitted returns for the assessment year 1987-88 revealing gross and taxable turnovers. At the time of assessment, a fraud report was taken into consideration and was also brought to the notice of the dealer. The fraud report related to two purchases made by another dealer of Bolangir, named, Manoranjan Dogra, of goods on credit on 18th May, 1987 worth Rs. 1,140 and Rs. 2,011.20 in two separate transactions on the basis of two receipts. When confronted with these two transactions, one of the partners of the dealer produced two cash memos representing the aforesaid sales. The assessing officer, however, believed the cred...
Durga Devi Mishra and ors. Vs. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC471; 67(1989)CLT184
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Motor Accepts Claims Tribunal acting under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act has got the authority to entertain an application for restoring a claim case which happened to be dismissed for default.2. In the case in hand, the claim case, which was instituted by the appellants, was dismissed for default and subsequently restored on an application being filed. Thereafter, the contesting respondent filed written statement and issues were settled. But, when the case was taken up for hearing, a point was railed by the respondents that the order of restoration of the claim case was without jurisdiction in view of the decision of this Court in Nishemani v. Maheswar Sahu 1985 ACJ 577 (Orissa).3. When this case was taken up for hearing before G.B. Patnaik, J. on 17-3-1986, he having entertained some doubt regarding the correctness of the aforesaid decision in view of the Rules framed by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›