Orissa Court July 1990 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.
Ramachandra Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC328(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The statement of case was called for under Section 24(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the following questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment proceeding is vitiated in view of the fact that the report of the Inspector was not confronted to the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is reasonable nexus between the amount assessed and the materials available on record ?'2. Bairagi Sahoo, father of the dealer, was carrying on the business of sale in kora and khai in Bhubaneswar. He died leaving behind five sons of whom the dealer is the eldest. Other sons are carrying on their business at other places but the dealer carries on business of sale in kora and khai in the same place where his father was residing. He has given trade name of his business as 'Baya Kora and Khai'.3. Getting information that all the brothers are residing toge...
Motor House Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC385(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. On the following question, the statement was called for in respect of the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 for which the dealer has been assessed.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the computation of profit at the rate of 15 per cent in respect of the goods taxable at 5 per cent and 8 per cent and at the rate of 20 per cent in respect of the goods taxable at 12 per cent is legal and justified ?'2. The dealer carries on the business of supply of motor parts, lubricants, batteries, nuts and bolts. For that purpose, he has been registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. Having submitted return under Section 11 beyond the due date, assessment was completed under Section 12(4) of the Act to the best of judgment of the Sales Tax Officer. In the return, dealer disclosed his turnover to be purchase price with 10 per cent profit. The Sales Tax Officer, however, enhanced the turnover in respect of hardware at 25 per cent and in respect of motor part...
State of Orissa Vs. Mahabir Prasad Agrawalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC163(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. These three applications have been filed under Section 24(2)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the State of Orissa. Since same question in respect of the same dealer is involved in respect of which a common order was passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, they are heard together and are disposed of in this common order.2. The dealer carries on inter-State sale for which he is registered under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In respect of years 1978-79 to 1980-81, the Sales Tax Officer initiated proceedings for assessing the escaped turnover of the dealer. Notice to the dealer was sent through the process server of the Sales Tax Officer. The same could not be validly served. Again an attempt was made by which it was affixed on the plea that the dealer refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer, before making enquiry for completing th...
Umashankar Rice Mill Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR638(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax. Act, 1961, against the order of refusal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal refusing to state a case under Section 256(1) of the Act.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax exercised power under section. 263 of the Act. The petitioner's grievance is that power under Section 263 ought not to have been exercised when there was an exhaustive enquiry by the income-tax Officer before making assessment and, in any case, the Income-tax Officer had power under Section 147 to reopen the assessment for reasons as indicated in that section.3. Mr. A.K. Ray submitted that an interpretation of Section 263 is involved in this case for which a statement ought to be called for. Learned Advocate-General who is also,standing counsel for the Department submitted that where the Legislature has not put any restriction to the power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, on the language of that section which is clear, no question...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Biju Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR544(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The applicant seeks to intervene in this reference made by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Excepting that the assessee is a political man having political rivalry, there is no other ground for considering the application for intervention. There is no scope under the Act for a third person to approach the Income-tax Officer to assist it to make assessment of the assessee. Thus, the Income-tax Officer could not have allowed the prayer of the petitioner, An appeal under the Act can be filed either by the assessee or by the Department. There is no scope for a third person who is not affected directly either by adding an amount to the income or deducting the same from the income of the assessee to prefer an appeal. Thus, appeal by the applicant would have been incompetent. A party to an appeal can only request for reference on a question of law arising out of the order. Third parties to assessment like the applicant have no right to requ...
Rajib Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1026
ORDERJ.M. Mahapatra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the 2nd. Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, maintaining the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, convicting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days for the conviction under the latter offence, no separate sentence having been passed under the former conviction.2. The facts of the case, most of which are undisputed, may be briefly stated thus. On 8-5-1983 at about 9 a.m. the ill-fated Jeep bearing No. ORG 8248 was being driven by the petitioner, who was the regular driver of the vehicle, an the occupants of the vehicle were the informant (P.W. 4) a Junior Engineer, working in Harabhangi Project who was proceeding to his village Patrapur with his family members consisting of his wife and three children. The vehicle was coming from Ichhapur side...
Rajih Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC77; 1991ACJ1026
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, maintaining the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, convicting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days for the conviction under the latter offence, no separate sentence having been passed under the former conviction.2. The facts of the case, most of which are undisputed, may be briefly stated thus: On 5.8.1983 at about 9 a.m. the ill-fated jeep bearing No. ORG 8248 was being driven by the petitioner, who was the regular driver of the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle were the informant (PW 4), a Junior Engineer, working in Harabhangi Project who was proceeding to his village Patrapur with his family members consisting of his wife and three children. The vehicle was coming from Ichhapu...
Collector of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC385; 1992(61)ELT425(Ori)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Collector of Central Excise. Despite valid service of notice, opposite party has not entered appearance.2. Opposite party filed an application in form AL-4 prescribed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules for a licence to manufacture Ferro Silicon/Charge Chromein its factory at Therumbal. On that basis licence in Form AL-4 was granted. When it came to notice of the Collector the factory had no industrial licence for producing charge Chrome as per Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1981 (sic) Collector exercising' power under Rule 180 deleted 'Charge Chrome' from the licence in Form L-4 with effect from 1-7-1985. Against this order opposite party preferred an appeal in Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. Appellate Tribunal restored the licence in respect of Charge Chrome on the finding that Co...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gangaram Chapolia and Co.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR594(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court required the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and to refer the following question, of law :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the order of rectification was barred by limitation ?'2. The assessee was a partnership firm. In respect of the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, assessments were made on July 16, 1971, and October 26,1971, respectively. The Income-tax Officer directed charge of interest under sections 139 and 215 of the Act which were calculated accordingly. Later, however, the income-tax Officer found errors in calculation. He, therefore, rectified the mistakes in exercise of his power under Section 154 by order dated October 20, 1975, by increasing the amount of interest. Orders of amendment were set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the finding that the Income-tax Officer did not follow the principles of natural justice by giving reasonable opportunity to the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shivkumar Agrawal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR734(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, a statement of the case was called for from the Tribunal on the following question of law arising out of the order : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the year ?' 2. The same question in another form was referred by the Tribunal to this court which has been answered in the decision reported in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu [ : [1976]105ITR56(Orissa) . Admittedly, the said decision is against the Department. Statement in this case was called for on the ground that the correctness of the said decision was pending in the Supreme Court. 3. Mr. S. C. Ray, learned Advocate General and standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, submitted that the Supreme Court has not yet decided the matter. 4. There is no necessity to keep the reference pending awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. It is true that imposition of penalty by the Assi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »