Orissa Court August 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.
State of Orissa Vs. Iqbal Bros.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC337(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was justified to hold that the dealer is to pay purchase tax on the transaction of mahua flowers, on the basis of royalty amount paid by the dealer to the Forest Department to remove mahua flowers collected from the persons on payment of remuneration ?'2. The dealer carries on business of purchase and sale of mahua flower which is liable to purchase tax under Section 3-B and was registered under the Act. For the year 1978-79, he was assessed to the best of judgment as envisaged under Section 12(4) of the Act. The dealer paid purchase tax on the royalty paid to the State Government. The Sales Tax Officer, however, held that sale price of mahua flowers included royalty which is charged by ...
Mihir Narayan Mohanty Vs. Sadyalaxmi Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC425
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In a matrimonial proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, application for amendment to add the prayer of restitution of conjugal rights was filed. The same having been rejected, husband has filed this Civil Revision.2. Considering age and family status of the parties, I tried for reconciliation but could not become successful on account of deep-seated misunderstanding which I railed to remove. When 1 fixed the Civil Revision for hearing, both parties have filed an application jointly for mutual divorce as provided under Section 13-B of the Act.3. Normally, as the Section provides from the date of application, Court is to wait for six months for passing an order of divorce. However, the guideline does not provide for any prohibition for the Court in just cases to pass an order earlier to the period fixed. Since both the parties are educated and alter hearing both the parties and their learned counsels, I am satisfied that mutual application for divorce i...
State of Orissa Vs. Laxmi Industries
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC43(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Judicial Member was justified to hold that sugar-candy is tax-free although it has been specifically made taxable at 4 per cent from May 1, 1976 by Finance Department Notification No. 20215 dated April 23, 1976.'2. During years 1978-79 and 1979-80 the dealer was manufacturing and selling sugar-candy amongst other articles. The Sales Tax Officer found that the dealer has not paid tax on the turnover representing sale price of sugar-candy and imposed tax on such turnover. The dealer preferred appeals challenging that sugar-candy is not taxable, since it is same as sugar which is exempted from tax in the notification under Section 6 of the Act. It relied upon a decision reported in [1982] 51 STC 75 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Biju Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR396(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These references relate to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 in respect of the same assessee who is assessed as an individual. Against the assessments, the assessee preferred appeals and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessments in respect of the three years with a direction to reframe the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses in the light of the observations made in the appellate order. The assessee and the Revenue both preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal where it was held, amongst others, that statements obtained under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act cannot be used against the assessee without providing an opportunity to him to place materials for rebutting the same. It was further held that the Income-tax Officer failed to consider all the evidence on record and without calling upon the assessee to furnish explanation on some points, the Income-t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›