Court : Guwahati
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned Advocate General representing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. AK Phookan, learned senior counsel has appeared and argued on behalf of the respondent No. 3.2. The present writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-1-2007 passed in WP (C) No. 6165/2006. The challenge in the writ petition was to the notification dated 28-11-2006 whereby the Chief Executive Member of Mara Autonomous District Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the MADC') was directed to secure a vote of confidence in a special session on 8-1 -2007. By the said order it was further directed that only the elected Members of the District Council shall be permitted to vote in the vote of confidence. The writ petitioner who is a nominated Member of the District Council has challenged the said direction dated 28-11-2006 whereby the nominated Members have been kept ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : AIR2010Gau11
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. A batch of writ petitions and writ appeals are pending for quite some time in this Court. The earliest of the batch, as can be traced out so far, is WP (C) No. 2275/2004. The said batch and connected appeals, as a matter of fact, are heard in part. Broadly speaking, the complaint in those cases is that a truck carrying cargo in the State of Meghalaya is being compelled to pay substantial amounts at innumerable points in the State of Meghalaya to various persons. Broadly such persons fall under four categories - (1) persons operating weighbridges on various terms and conditions stipulated by the State of Meghalaya; (2) the local tribal chiefs known as Syiems and Sardars; (3 the authorities purportedly implementing the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and (4) the police officers of the State of Meghalaya.2. It can be mentioned here that Sylems and Sardars, the local tribal chiefs, who are parties respondents to the various writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a revision against the decision of the Sessions Judge, Upper Assam Districts, who confirmed the conviction and sentences passed against the two applicants'Balbir Sing and Inderjit Sing by Sri A. Ahmed, Magistrate, 1st Class at Jorhat. Applicant No. 1 was convicted under Section 61-A of the East Bengal and Assam Excise Act-hereinafter called the Act and applicant No. 2 was convicted under Section 53 (l) (a) of the Act, Each of these two applicants were sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo another period of three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that on 21-11-54 the Excise Inspector under the authority of a search war- rant searched the Broadway Hotel and restaurant including its kitchen and recovered one bottle of Heyward's brandy, one kettle containing liquor, one bottle containing about a dram of Hey ward's brandy, one bottle containing traces of Heyward's whisky, six empt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The common question, which we have to decide in these applications is about the constitutional validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (Assam Act I of 1957), which came into force on 15-2-1938 and received the assent of the President on 7-12-1956. 2. The attack on the legislation is directed on various grounds. It is urged : that the impugned Act is not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature, as it is not covered by any of the items in either the State or the Concurrent Legislative list given in the Constitution of India; that it purports to acquire private property of individuals without any public purpose and without providing for adequate payment of compensation and puts a limitation on the right to acquire, hold or dispose of property and is, therefore, hit by Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution; that the provisions in regard to payment of compensation are merely illusory and the legislation is a colourab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sen, J. 1. Civil Rule No. 194/66 arises out of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, whereby the petitioner has prayed that the respondents should be asked to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned notice dated the 14th March, 1966, issued by the respondent No. 1, Income-tax Officer, 'E' Ward, Gauhati, and/or why a writ in the natute of certiorari or a writ of like nature should not be issued and the impugned notice dated the 14th March, 1966, should not be set aside and quashed. 2. The petitioner made another prayer that the respondents should show cause why Section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') should not be declared and adjudged as null and void. This part of the prayer has been given up at the time of arguing the case and so we need not embark upon any discussion on this matter. 3. The petitioner's case is that he was a partner during the accounting year 1957-58 of two registered partners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sen, J. 1. These seven writ applications are taken up together as the points involved therein are common. It is prayed that the respondents, namely, the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Shillong, and others, should be called upon to forbear from giving effect to the impugned notices as also the impugned order dated March 31, 1962, passed by the respondent No. 1. It is also prayed that the order dated May 4, 1966, passed on appeal by the respondent No. 1 should not be given effect to. We shall mainly refer to the facts of the case stated in Civil Rule No. 357/65, as they are common to all the rest of the cases. The assessment years involved are 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. 2. There is a Hindu undivided family under the name of Ganeshdas Sreeram which originally owned all the businesses of the family and carried on the same as such, till the assessment year 1946-47. Thereafter, there was partial partition in the year 2003, Ramnavami, corresponding to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
M.C. Pathak, C.J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), issued by the Income-tax Officer, ' A ' Ward, Jorhat, to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1958-59, corresponding to the accounting year R. N. 2014, along with statements of accounts such as trading account, profit and loss account, balance-sheet, interest account, salary account, partners' account, accounts of various parties from whom goods were purchased and loans were taken or paid and those statements formed part of the said return. On the basis of the said return assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1958-59 were completed by the Income-tax Officer, Jorhat, under Section 23(5)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on October 30, 1958. The Income-tax Officer estimated the income of the-petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
The judgment of the court was delivery byM. C. PATHAK C.J. - By this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act"), issued by the Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Jorhat, to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1958-59, corresponding to the accounting year R. N. 2014, along with statements of accounts such as trading account, profit and loss account, balance-sheet, interest account, salary account, partners account, accounts of various parties from whom goods were purchased and loans were taken or paid and those statements formed part of the said return. On the basis of the said return assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1958-59 were completed by the Income-tax Officer, Jorhat, under section 23(5)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on October 30, 1958. The In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : [1975]100ITR159(Gauhati)
The judgment of the court was delivery byM. C. PATHAK C.J. - By this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), issued by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Jorhat, to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1958-59, corresponding to the accounting year R. N. 2014, along with statements of accounts such as trading account, profit and loss account, balance-sheet, interest account, salary account, partners account, accounts of various parties from whom goods were purchased and loans were taken or paid and those statements formed part of the said return. On the basis of the said return assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1958-59 were completed by the Income-tax Officer, Jorhat, under section 23(5)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on October 30, 1958. The Income-tax Officer esti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Baharul Islam, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari and mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, and is directed against an order of assessment dated March 24, 1965, made by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as 'I.T.Q., Jorhat') for the assessment year 1960-61 and the notice of demand of the same date issued by the same officer under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 18,495.98 from the petitioner.2. The material facts of the case may be stated :The petitioner filed a voluntary return on July 29, 1964, before the I. T. O., Jorhat, for the assessment year 1960-61. In the return she stated to be a partner of M/s. Jain Commercial Corporation at Jorhat, which had come into existence since the assessment year 1960-61. It was disclosed in the return by the petitioner that she was one of the partners of the aforesaid firm and that she...
Tag this Judgment!