Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1989]72STC317(AP)
Upendralal Waghray, J. 1. These two T.R.Cs. under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the APGST Act') are filed by the same assessee and the controversy is about the assessment year 1978-79. T.R.C. No. 2 of 1984 relates to the assessment under the APGST Act and T.R.C. No. 6 of the 1984 relates to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. 2. The assessee in connection with his business purchases bones of recently killed animals (raw bones) from various parsons in the State, who are not registered dealers under the Act and after drying the bones, gets them crushed in a mill. This operation results in products like, crushed bones, bone grist, bone-meal and sinews. These products are sold by the assessee to various persons in the State and outside the State. The purchase of raw bones by the assessee from the unregistered dealers is the first sale in the State and this was taxable at 1 per cent under the APGST Act vide item 62 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD260
G. Rohini, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-9-1990 in A.S.No.85 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Guntur reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 300 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S, No.300 of 1981 which was filed seeking a declaration that she has become the absolute owner of the Items 1 to 3 of the plaint A-schedule property by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and for the enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per annum and to create a charge on the plaint 'B' schedule property for the said payment. The respondent herein/the sole defendant contested the suit claim. The trial Court by judgment dated 31-12-1987 partly decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff became full owner of Item Nos. l to 3 of the plaint-A schedule property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD409; 2005(3)ALT737; (2005)IILLJ781AP
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. All India Crochet Lace Exporters Association, represented by its General Secretary, filed the present Writ Petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring that the artisans who knit the laces and sell the same to an exporter can never be deemed as 'workman' or 'employee' of such purchaser within the meaning of any of The A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or the A.P.Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1987 having regard to the special nature of service of exporters such as collecting the lace pieces, exporting them to foreign countries and earning foreign exchange cannot be deemed as an establishment; that therefore either the artisans who do the lace work during his/her idle time by their special art or the persons who purchase such lace pieces and export them cannot be governed for any rights or liabilities by either The Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or the A.P. Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1987; that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.) The relief sought for, in this batch of Writ Petitions, is to quash the assessment orders, passed for different assessment periods in respect of the very same assessee, levying purchase tax under Section 4(4)(iii) of the A.P. VAT Act on goods sold in the course of export out of the territory of India. Counsel on either side are in agreement that the facts in W.P. No.26129 of 2012 can be taken as illustrative of the facts in this batch of Writ Petitions. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, has branches in different parts of the country including one at the Special Economic zone Kakkanad, Cochin, and another in Secunderabad. They are engaged in the business of trading in yeast, bakery ingredients and chillies. A substantial part of their operations is said to be of direct export of chillies to foreign countries through its branch at Cochin, and its importer and exporter Code Number is stated to be 0288001532. According to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1976)IILLJ417AP
A. Sambasiva Rao, Acting C.J.1. This writ petition has travelled from a learned single Judge to a Division Bench and then to us sitting in a Full Bench. That is because of the objection raised by the 1st respondent, viz., the Visakapatnam Port Trust as to the maintainability of the writ petition against it. The highest Court of the land has itself spoken on the subject very many times, but not always uniformly. After several pronouncements on the question, the Supreme Court held in Sirsi Municipality v. C.K.F. Tellies 1973--I L.L.J. 226 : AIR 1973 SC 855, that though an ordinary relationship of master and servant is governed by contract, there are certain exceptions to that rule. If a dispute arises under the industrial law or if it is the case of a servant in the employment of State or public or local authority or bodies created under statute, the Court can step in if the dismissal is contrary to rules of natural justice or the provisions of the statute or mandatory procedural require...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD607
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Having regard to the divergence of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench, the matter has been referred to me by My Lord the Chief Justice.2. The facts of the case have been succinctly narrated by my Learned Sister Justice T. Meena Kumari. I have had the advantage of going through both the judgments written by the learned Judges. Having regard to the same, there is no need for me to reiterate the facts in extenso except mentioning the same wherever necessary to elucidate the point in controversy.3. It is expedient to refer the parties, as they are originally arrayed in the suit so as to avoid confusion. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 118 of 2003 for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 9-12-1980. The defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing a written statement. Subsequently they filed an interlocutory application in LA.No. 3665 of 2003 in O.S.No. 118 of 2003 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1981CriLJ393
1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment rendered by the Second Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tanuku, acquitting the respondent-accused of the charge framed against him under Section 16(1) and 7 read with Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called, the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal lie in a narrow compass and do not admit of any controversy. 3. On 23-6-1977 at 9-30 a.m. P.W. 1 the Food Inspector of Penugonda Gram Panchayat, purchased a sample of milk from the accused after complying with the procedure prescribed by the Act. On analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst it was found to adulterated, as borne out by Ex. P-5. Neither the factum of sale of the sample by the accused P.W. 1 nor the accuracy of the report of the Public Analyst was doubted by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no evidence that the adulterated sample was injurious to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1984)39CTR(AP)73; [1984]145ITR303(AP)
Seetharama Reddy, J. 1. The question, at the instance of the Revenue, to be answered in this reference is, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under s. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is liable to be assessed for the assessment year 1970-71. This reference concerns 11 respondents, and since identical questions arise, the Commissioner of Income-tax required the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case, which will be common to all. 2. All the assesses are members of an HUF, which owns certain agricultural lands, which were acquired by the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh by a notification under s. (44) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Gazette on December 1, 1966. The possession of the lands was taken in parts on the following dates, i.e., January 4, 1967, January 13, 1967, August 7, 1968, and August 31, 1968. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on September 29, 1969, and the compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ153AP
N.J. Patnaik, J.1. The writ appeals are filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6720/84 and 13767/86. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Federation'), is running a canteen for the workers employed in the factory and office establishment at Lalpet in Hyderabad. The petitioners 1 to 21 were working in the said canteen. They filed W.P. 6720/1984 for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Federation to treat them as employees of the Federation to fix appropriate regular sales of pay as applicable to the employees of the Federation. The other Writ Petition 13767/86 was filed by them challenging the illegal and unlawful termination of the petitioners with prayer to reinstate them into service with full backwages. The petitioners alleged in their affidavit that till 1977 the canteen was being run by a private contractor and afterwards it was run by the Federation itself under the supervision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1986]158ITR353(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following three questions of law for the opinion of this court. This reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and relates to the income-tax assessment year 1971-72. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,69,456 is a capital receipt 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that no action can be taken to assess the receipt in the hands of the predecessor firm under section 41(1), particularly in the absence of any appeal or cross-objections against the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is a change in the constitution of the firm or succession by another firm ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partn...
Tag this Judgment!