Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-21-2005
Reported in : (2005)140PLR313; [2005]141STC119(P& H)
Viney Mittal, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range)-cum-Revisional Authority, Ambala (respondent No. 2).2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from C.W.P. No. 15749 of 2004.Petitioner-Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-company') is engaged in the business of construction and claims to have its area of operation across the entire country. In the State of Haryana, it is duly registered as a dealer under the provision of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') and is being assessed by Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar. For the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner-Company had returned a gross turnover of Rs. 20,65,04,077/-. as per the return, tax liability of the petitioner-Company was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-03-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2857; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)784; 2005(2)AWC1697(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1976; 2006(2)BomCR855; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN58; 2005(2)CTC809; [2005(3)JCR153(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC79; (2006)2M
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. A building, as defined in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was taken on rent from one Quasim, the predecessor of the respondents, by Ram Babu Jaiswal, the predecessor of the appellants, some time in the year 1958. Rent was enhanced and a fresh rent deed was executed on 7.4.1970. That tenancy continued. Quasim, the landlord died. His rights devolved on his heirs. It is the case of the appellants that they have taken assignment of the rights of certain heirs, being co-owner landlords, on 29.12.1988. The respondents in this appeal, the heirs of Quasim, filed House Control Case No.33 of 1993 under the Act, for fixation of fair rent. By order dated 22.3.1994 the House Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,950/- per month. The plea based on assignment of the reversion by some of the legal representatives of Quasim, the landlord, and the consequential extinguishment of the lease was rejected. An app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra
Decided on : Feb-28-2005
Reported in : (2005)96TTJAgra813
These are two appeals of the same assessee, for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, are against the order of the CIT(A) dated 20-1-2004 and 23-11-2004, respectively.Since both these appeals relate to the same assessee, we have decided to dispose of these two appeals, for the sake of convenience, by this common/consolidated order.In this appeal, the assessee has objected to the order of the CIT(A) by way of following grounds "(1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment made by the learned assessing officer under section 143(3) without properly appreciating that notice under section 143(2) has not been served upon the assessee within the statutory time limit as required by the proviso to section 143(2).(2) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the rejection of books of account by the learned assessing officer by erroneously and arbitrarily invoking the provisions of section 145(3).(3) That the learned CIT(A) has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-2005
Reported in : (2005)(191)ELT589Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act. He avails of MOPVAT credit of duty paid on the scrap received by him as inputs. During the period under dispute the appellant availed of credit on the strength of 10 endorsed gate passes and 44 certificates issued in lieu of gate-passes. The gate passes referred to above were endorsed by Traders and the Certificates were issued by the Central Excise Officers, who verified the original duty paying documents. Both these documents are valid documents for the purpose of taking credit.2. It is alleged that the appellant availed credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes, which were so endorsed on the strength of, forged gate passes and availed of credit on the basis of certificates issued on the basis of fake/forged documents. During the investigation statements of the officials of the appellant company and that of the traders from whom inputs were received, were recorded....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-21-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Cal102
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Both the aforesaid applications were heard together as the points involved in both the matters are identical. Both these two applications owe their origin to the judgment and order dated 17th March, 2004. This order was passed on settlement being arrived at by and between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the other. In view of the settlement and on the basis of suggestion given to the Court by both the parties this order was passed. In terms of this order the defendant No. 3 being the applicant of G. A. No. 3035 of 2004 was directed to transfer the property atJagmohan Village, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the said property) to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 7th September, 2000 read with the agreement dated 12th September, 2002 for consideration of Rs. 21.10 crores. The plaintiff is directed to make ready at its own costs the stamp paper and complete all legal formalities require...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-26-2005
Reported in : AIR2006SC450; 2006(1)ALD10(SC); 2005(3)ARBLR285(SC); 2006(1)AWC538(SC); 2006(1)BomCR585; [2005]128CompCas465(SC); (2006)2CompLJ7(SC); 2005(5)CTC302; (2006)3GLR2097; [2006(1
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 3205/2004, 14033-14034/2004, 21272-273/2002.1. What is the nature of the function of the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is the question that is posed before us. The three judges bench decision in Konkan Rly. Corporation Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co. : AIR2000SC2821 as approved by the Constitution Bench in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. : [2002]1SCR728 has taken the view that it is purely an administrative function, that it is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial and the Chief Justice or his nominee performing the function under Section 11(6) of the Act, cannot decide any contentious issue between the parties. The correctness of the said view is questioned in these appeals.2. Arbitration in India was earlier governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1859 with limited application and the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-27-2005
Van Orden v. Perry - 03-1500 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 VAN ORDEN V. PERRY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VAN ORDEN v . PERRY, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 031500.Argued March 2, 2005Decided June 27, 2005 Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The legislative record illustrates that, after accepting the monument from the Fraternal Order of Eaglesa national social, civic, and patriotic organizationthe State selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state organization that maintains the capitol grounds. Petitioner, an Austin resident who encounters the monument during his frequent visits to those grounds, brought this 42 U. S.C. 1983 suit seeking a declaration that the monuments placement violates the First...
Tag this Judgment!