Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1986All132
ORDERS.K. Dhaon, J.1. The petitioners have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and have challenged the legality of an order dated 18th May 1982, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) setting aside a resolution dated 16th October, 1981, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Authority) including a portion of an independent route in their existing permits for stage carriages and remanding the matter for reconsideration by a duly constituted authority,2. The petitioners were existing permit-holders of one of the three routes which were Nagina-Kalagarh-via-Afzalgarh (hereinafter referred to as route No. 1); Nagina-Jaspur-via-Afzalgarh (hereinafter referred to as route No. 2); and Kashipur-Kalagarh-via-Jaspur (hereinafter referred to as route No. 3). Petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners Ist set) the existing permit-holders...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1987)63CTR(All)248; [1988]172ITR122(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. Sahu Shiva Shakti Saran Kothiwal, father of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 died on June 5, 1975. The petitioner filed the estate duty return on June 3, 1977. In between the death and the filing of the return, the petitioner has alleged that he had applied to the Assistant Controller, Lucknow, to supply to the petitioner an Estate Duty Return Form D.E.I, which was done on May 6, 1976.2. On receipt of the estate duty return, the Assistant Controller, Luck-now, respondent No. 1, made a provisional assessment under Section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act'), and created a demand of Rs. 2,12,872. The petitioner filed an objection dated June 21, 1977, against the provisional assessment showing various mistakes that had crept in it. The Assistant Controller completed the regular assessment under Section 58 of the Act on March 14, 1981. The petitioner again found certain mistakes in the final assessment order and, therefore, an application purporting to be unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1987All235
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. Out of the writ petitions challenging the validity of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986) three cases, which were argued by Sri Jagdish Swarup, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, are Writ Petition No. 4562 of 1986, Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 2545 of 1986, Hari Singh Thakur v. State of U.P., and Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1986 Bramha Din v. State of U.P. Apart from these Advocates, others who made their submissions before us were Sri A.N. Srivastava and Sri D.S. Misra. The remaining Advocates did not advance any argument in addition to what bad been argued challenging the validity of the Act by the Advocates aforesaid and they adopted the arguments made by them. We must record our appreciation for the valuable assistance received by the Court from the learned counsel on many issues arising in these cases.2. For the decision of the points urged, it is not necessary to mention t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1989)28ITD85(All.)
1. The assessee is a limited company, which was primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. It also had a cold storage plant and a steel foundry. On 10th October, 1968, a news item appeared in the National Herald in which it was stated that the State of Uttar Pradesh had decided to give exemption from sales tax for a period of 3 years under Section 4A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to all new industrial units in the State with a view to enabling them 'to come on firm footing in developing stage'. This item was based upon a statement made by the then Secretary in the Industries Department of the Government. The assessee, on the basis of this announcement, addressed a letter dated 11th October, 1968 to the Director of Industries stating that in view of the sales tax holiday announced by the Government, it intended to set up a hydrogenation plant for manufacture of vanaspati and sought for confirmation that this industrial unit, which they proposed to set up, would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)103CTR(All)324; [1992]195ITR247(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. A common question arises in this batch of six writ petitions. They can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order. The question is :' Whether the assessee has a right to compel the Assessing Officer to communicate to him the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer under Sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961--whether before the filing of the return or thereafter ?' For the sake of convenience, we shall state the facts in Civil Misc. Writ No. 165 of 1991.2. The assessee was a partner in three partnership firms during the 'previous year' relevant to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88. The petitioner states that he had no income other than the share income from the said partnerships. He filed returns and assessments were completed according to law. On August 10, 1988, a search was conducted at the business premises of the said three partnership firms under Section 132 of the Act. The residential premises of the partners, including the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1993]199ITR726(All)
R.R. Misra, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, Sri Jawahar Lal Gupta, the petitioner, as an individual, has sought to challenge the notice dated January 15, 1991, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Agra, seeking to reopen the assessment proceedings under Section 147(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1989-90. Immediately on receipt of the said notice, the assessee had asked for a copy of the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer on which the assessment was sought to be reopened. Since no return was filed, the Income-tax Officer declined to do so until the return was filed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 353 of 1991 in this court, which was decided on April 18, 1991 (see : [1992]196ITR147(All) ). In the counter affidavit, the respondent had stated that he had never refused access to the reasons on which notice under Section 147(1)(a) of the Act was issued, nor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All98; (1994)3UPLBEC1740
ORDERS. S. Sodhi, C.J. 1. The matter here concerns admissions to Government MedicalColleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh by migration or transfer from various recognised and unrecognised Medical Colleges outside the State. It arises in the context of a bunch of 139 petitions, which came up before the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal against interlocutory orders of this Court directing admissions to Government Medical Colleges in the State by migration/transfer, which as the Supreme Court observed, 'prima facie indicate too liberal a judicial attitude to matters which should have required the application of settled principles of interlocutory relief' and further that the submissions during arguments 'embarrassingly indicated a widely shared apprehension as to the bona fides of the transfers and possible abuse of the process of Court' and that 'the present interlocutory orders do lack visible legal support.'2. Most of the writ petitions now before us comprise the said bunch of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2003]130STC202(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. These groups of petitioners have challenged the vires of the U.P. Tax on Luxuries Ordinance, 1994 (U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1994) promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on 14th May, 1994 and the Notification No. TT-2-1767/IX-9 (382)/93-U.P., dated 28th May, 1994, the Notification No. TT-2-1768/IX-9 (382)/93-U.P., dated 28th May, 1994 and Notification No. TT-2-2032/XI-9 (382), dated 15th June, 1994. The petitioners are either manufacturers, producers, sellers within and outside State of specific branded cigarettes, pan masala, zarda, chewing tobacco, khaini under branded or unbranded name also sellers of unmanufactured tobacco. The purchase and sale by all the petitioners are done within or outside the State. Some of the petitioners have specifically pleaded their sale of tobacco outside the State being up to 98 per cent. The validity of the Ordinance is challenged being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 213, 245, 246, 265, 269, 286, 301 and 304 of the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All162
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. Democracy al the grass root level is the subject matter of a large number of petitions, all relating to the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This Act has been amended by the State legislature after the Constitution of India itself stood amended by the Contitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992, dated 20 April, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution Amendment Act'). Insofar as the Constitutional Amendments were concerned, primarily they related to introducing homogeneous local self-Government at the village level throughout the nation. And yet not ignoring the aspirations of rural India to participate in governing itself at the village level, certain nomenclatures to the administration of democracy at the village level were brought in as a standardised pattern in all the States of the nation. In some parts of India, the basic nucleus of local self-Government at the village was either the Gaon Sabha o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1309
ORDER1. For the reasons recorded separately this Full Bench unanimously holds that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing direction and command to the Magistrate or the Court of Sessions as the case may be, to consider the bail application; time Schedule for concluding bail proceedings cannot be fixed. Consequently, decision rendered in Dr. Hidavat Hussain Khan v. State of U.P., (1992 Crl. LJ 3534) is overruled and the decision rendere.d in Writ Petition No. 919 of 1992, Noor Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Ors. is upheld.2. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that if the petitioners are arrested and brought before the competent Court or voluntarily surrender before the competent Court, and apply for bail, their bail applications will be decided by the competent Court as expediously as possible in accordance with law.B.M. Lal, J.(2A) Following question is to be answered by this Full Bench :'Whether while rejecti...
Tag this Judgment!