Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-09-1981
Reported in : [1982]49STC181(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is the Commissioner's revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P Sales Tax Act. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, carried on business in foodgrains, oil-seeds and bardana at Mauranipur, Jhansi. In its assessment to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee had disclosed inter-State sales at Rs. 15,745. During the course of assessment proceedings on a scrutiny of the accounts the Sales Tax Officer found that in respect of purchases made by it as purchasing agent for ex- U.P. principals, it had used its own bardana, the value of which was Rs. 34,051.73. In the opinion of the Sales Tax Officer these sales of bardana were liable to be treated as inter-State sales. The contention of the assessee was that since it had made supplies of bardana from its own account, the same could not be treated as sales liable to tax under the Central Act. That argument was repelled and the aforesaid amount was brought to tax. In respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-23-1981
Reported in : AIR1981All246
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. The plaintiff has failed in both the courts below and has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 2. The plaint case in brief was that licence No. 6597 for a pistol of non-prohibited bore was granted to the plaintiff on 22nd Feb. 1964 by the District Magistrate, Jhansi. On 11-9-64, the plaintiff purchased a .25 bore pistol bearing No. 42114 from one Sri Viren-dra Singh, who was himself a licence-holder and owned the said pistol. However, the pistol had been illegally got deposited from Sri Virendra Singh under the directions of in-charge P. S. Samthor. The pistol was later on deposited in the Malkhana, Jhansi. Without revoking or cancelling the licence held by Sri Virendra Singh the pistol in question was forfeited. According to the plaintiff the direction to deposit the weapon in the Malkhana was absolutely illegal and Virendra Singh lasally continued to be its owner and was therefore, also entitled to sell the same. In 1964. the plaintiff applied for the re...
Tag this Judgment!