Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)1GLR237
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The question raised in this petition is directly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty and Ors. v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 100 confirming the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Jyoti Nikul Jariwala and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1988 Bombay 123.2. The petitioner applied for succession certificate and letters of administration on the death of his father. The application was registered as Succession Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 1990 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda. The succession certificate has been ordered to be issued in favour of the petitioner. However, the actual issuance of succession certificate is held up on account of non-payment of Courtfees. According to the respondent authorities, having regard to the valuation of the property of Rs. 7,52,760/- the Court-fees payable would be Rs. 54,000/-.3. Section 29 of the Bombay Court Fees Act provides for the payment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2002Guj121; (2002)1GLR58
K. R. Vyas, J.1. The petitioners in this group of petitions have challenged Rule 5, Sub-rule (1) and (2) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 (in short 'the Rules') as amended by Nolification dated 6-2-2001 and Circular dated 8-2-2001 issued by the State Government and Section 3A(1) and 3A(2) of Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act').The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 1288 of 2001 who are luxury bus operators, in their amended petition, also prayed to declare Sections 3A(1) and 3A(2) of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution. They have also prayed to declare Act No. 11 of 2000 and Ordinance No. 2 of 2000 as ultra vires, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and violative of Entry 56 and 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.2. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 1288 of 2001 are the Associations of which all the members are tour operators doing their business in the State of Gujarat.The p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1971]28STC5(Guj)
Desai, J.1. Whether 'Nycil Medicated Powder' is a 'toilet article' within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E or is a 'medicine' within the meaning of entry 13 of Schedule C or is covered by the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the question which arises for our determination in this reference. The facts giving rise to the reference are as under : The assessee-firm is a dealer carrying on business in drugs and medicines and is registered as a 'dealer' under the Act. The assessee-firm, is also functioning as a distributor of a product known as 'Nycil Medicated Powder' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nycil powder') manufactured by the British Drug House (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'British Drug House'). The firm made an application under section 52 of the Act to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination of the question as to the rate of tax payable on the sales of Nycil powder. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1969]24STC107(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. This reference raises an interesting question as to the true and proper interpretation of entry 21A of Schedule E under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in respect of 3 articles, viz., (1) Palmolive shampoo, (2) Colgate tooth- brush and (3) Colgate tooth-paste. The Tribunal has referred to this Court the following two questions : '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Palmolive shampoo (large size), sold under bill No. 505 dated 15th July, 1964, is a toilet article within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E or is soap within the meaning of entry 28 of Schedule C or is covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and liable to tax accordingly. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case (i) Colgate tooth-paste and (2) Colgate tooth-brush sold under bill No. 505 dated 15th July, 1964, are toilet articles within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E or are covered by en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR526]; (2008)IIILLJ1027Guj
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Appeal was heard by us in the month of February. We had the benefit of the able assistance of learned Counsel Mr. V.B. Patel. Before we could deliver this judgment, unfortunately the learned Counsel has passed away. 2. The Appeal is heard extensively. With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeal is finally decided by this judgment.3. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No. 21828/2006. The appellant, Garden Silk Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Mills'), is an employer within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). The respondents are the employees of the Mills. The matter at dispute is the orders of transfer dated 4th May, 1996. By the said orders the Mills transferred its employees then working in its Crimping depar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)3GLR183
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant-defendant no.4 of Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 1971 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29th December 1978 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat, declaring that survey no. 393 of Mota Village admeasuring 1 Acre 2 Gunthas, Gamtal Tukda No. 28 of Mota Village admeasuring 6 Gunthas and Building No. 3/121 of Mota village and building No. 3/122 of Mota village are the joint family properties of families consisting of plaintiff no.2 Mansing Thakor, plaintiff no.3 Manilal Thakor (respondents no. 1 and 2 herein), defendant no.2 Magan Bhikha Kara and defendant no.3 Bhagatsing Magan Bhikha, respondents no. 5 and 6 herein. The learned trial judge further held that the plaintiff Mansing Thakor and Manilal Thakor are jointly entitled to 1/2 share from the said properties and defendants Bhagatsing Magan and Magan Bhikha are jointly entitled to 1/2 share from the said properties. The learned trial judge, therefore, declared that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]85STC258(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions, a common question of vires of section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as amended by section 2 of the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990, arises for consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. In order to appreciate this common grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to not a few introductory facts : 3. I. Introductory facts : The petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). They carry on the activity of manufacturing and selling various goods in this State. For the purpose, they require raw materials which are to be used in manufacturing the end-products. The raw materials purchased by them in the State and used in the manufacturing process have been subjected to purchase tax by the impugned provisions. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common C.A.V. Order: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. While admitting Letters Patent Appeals being LPA No. 1106/2011, 1107/2011, 1111/2011 and 1116 of 2011 preferred by unsuccessful petitioners of four different Special Civil Applications, a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then the Chief Justice directed that in view of the importance of the issue involved therein, the matters should be heard by a larger Bench. Consequently, this Bench was constituted for hearing all those four LPAs. 1.1 Subsequently, after taking into consideration the fact that various Special Civil Applications were pending before the learned Single Judge involving the selfsame point, we decided to give opportunity of making submissions to the learned counsel for the petitioners in those Special Civil Applications at the time of hearing of the above four appeals. 2.2 The subject matter of the four LPAs indicated above is the decision of the District Collector, Kutch who issued instructions to the conce...
Tag this Judgment!