Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ782Cal
S.K. Datta, J.1. This appeal is by a dismissed Government servant, Makhanlal Dey, against the Union of India and raises questions regarding the construction of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution.2. The more relevant facts necessary for appreciating the controversies of law Involved In this appeal are given herein below In the next two paragraphs:3. In 1937 the plaintiff, Makhanlal Dey, was employed as an estimator in the Military Engineering Service commonly known as M.E.S. He was thereafter promoted to the rank of a Superintendent and ultimately employed at the relevant time as a Sub-divisional Officer, commonly known as S.D.O. The plaintiff was accordingly admittedly at all material times a civilian in the Defence Service.4. On 16 December 1919 a chargesheet was made over to him which contained inter alia charges of negligence In the course of his duties. On 23 November 1949 the Constitution of India came Into force. On 5 September 1951 the Chief Engineer, Eastern Command,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1986]61STC131(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. The main point to be decided in this case is whether sales tax could be levied on lottery tickets and if they are goods within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter be referred to as the said Act), which has denned 'goods' to include all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, stocks, shares or securities. Initially sales tax was neither levied nor imposed on lottery tickets. But after the coming into force of' the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, the State Legislature has promulgated the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter be referred to as the said 1984 Amendment), and thereby, they have sought to levy 20 per centum of such part of the taxable turnover of a dealer as represents the sale of lottery tickets.2. On such an application was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India amongst others by the respondent Shri Dipak Dhar, stating himself to be the proprietor o...
Tag this Judgment!