Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP88; [1961]12STC313(MP)
dixit, c.j. 1. by this application under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of assessment of the sales tax officer, khandwa, imposing on him sales-tax of rs. 1291-3-0 and a penalty of rs. 800/- for his failure to apply for registration under the central provinces and berar sales tax act, 1947. the assessment was made in the following circumstances. 2. the petitioner is the proprietor of a cotton pressing concern at khandwa. the business of the concern consists in pressing and baling ginned cotton supplied by merchants. the cotton is delivered by the petitioner to his clients in bales covered with hessian cloth and secured by iron hoops. the petitioner charged an inclusive rate for pressing and for packing. the sales tax officer held that the applicant was liable to pay sales-tax on the value of hessian cloth and iron hoops used in the baling process and accordingly made an assessment of sales-tax for the period front 1st september 1956 to 31st august 1957. he relied on the decision of a division bench of this court in jaikishan gopikishan v. commissioner, sales tax, 1957 mfc 94: 1957-8 stc 286: ((s) air 1957 madh pra 40) where it was held with reference to the madhya bharat sales tax act, 1950, that the owner of a ginning and pressing factory carrying on the business of baling and pressing cotton supplied by the customer and of delivering the pressed cotton in the form of bales covered with hessian cloth .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1963]47ITR25(Cal)
p. b. mukharji j. - this is a reference by the commissioner of income-tax under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act. the two questions asked in the reference are as follows :'(1) whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the claim for double taxation relief was properly made within the meaning of section 49a of the income-tax act, read with the income-tax (double taxation relief) (united kingdom) rules, 1948 and(2) whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the claim for the double taxation relief was made within the period prescribed under the indian income-tax act and the rules ?'before answering these two questions, it will be appropriate to set out the relevant facts. the assessee is a non-resident sterling company. dividend is its only source of income from india. it has also income which accrued or arose outside india from dividends from companies outside india having income accruing or arising in india. dividends from india were returned in section a of the return under section 22(2), whereas other dividends were returned in section c of the said return as not being chargeable in india.the assessments were made in the first instance for the year 1940-41 and 1941-42 on the 16th december, 1943, for the year 1942-43 on the 17th december, 1943, and for the year 1943-44 on the 20th january, 1944. in such assessments the income-tax officer did not include the income accruing outside india in the total income of the company. this was made because .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1962CriLJ380
orderveeraswami, j.1. the petitioner was convicted under section 16 (1) read with section 7 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, it is in evidence that on 12-8-1959, at about 9-10 a.m. the food inspector of the ayyampet pan-chayat board visited the business premises of the petitioner where he was vending gingelly oil, purchased a quantity of the oil and when it was sent for chemical analysis, it was found to contain 6.8 per cent of oleic acid. these facts are not disputed.2. but the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the sample of the oil was taken on 12-8-1959, actually it was analysed by the chemical analyst only on 25-8-1959, and the certificate was issued only on 13-2-1960, and that the presence of oleic acid in the gingelly oil in excess of the permitted limit might possibly have been due to the delay of h days in analysing the sample. that there was a delay of 11 days is undoubted. the only question is whether the excess of oleic acid over the allowed percentage of 3 per cent was due to causes beyond the control of the petitioner. in support of his argument learned counsel draw my attention to a judgment of my learned brother kunhammed kutti, j., in crl. r. c. 273 of 1960 (mad) in which he took the view that the delay of 11 days in that case between, the seizure of the sample and the chemical analysis gave rise to a doubt whether the offending excess percentage of fat in the oil might not be due to causes not attributable to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal544
p.c. mallick, j. 1. the plaintiffs are the widow and minor children of one sunil baran chowdhury, who was killed in an air crash at nagpur. the suit has been instituted by his dependents under the fatal accidents act for recovery of damages against the defendant corporation. sunil baran was a passenger by air from calcutta to madras via nagpur in the aircraft of the defendant corporation. he duly purchased a ticket and the aircraft left calcutta on december, 11, 1953. at midnight the aircraft reached nagpur, where sunil baran took another plane bound for madras. this madras bound plane came from begumpet at hyderabad via bombay. this plane took off at about 3.20 a. m. on december 12, 1953, from nagpur aerodrome, and very shortly thereafter the aircraft crashed. the plaintiff's case is that the crash resulting in the death of sunil baran was caused by the negligence of the defendant corporation or its employees. some particulars of negligence are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint. leave was reserved to furnish further particulars after discovery. no further particulars, however, have been furnished. it is alleged that by the death the estate of sunil baran has suffered damages assessed at rs. 20 lacs. further, sunil baran took along with him rs. 5000/- in cash and in kind which were lost in the crash. the above two sums are sought to be re-covered in this suit. 2. in the written statement filed by the defendant porporation, all allegations of negligence, including the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1268; (1964)66BOMLR315; 1964MhLJ426(SC); [1964]5SCR148
subba rao, j.1. these six appeals filed by special leave raise a common question, namely whether the suits filed against the western railway for the refund of amounts collected from the appellant-firm as wharfage or demurrage would lie in a civil court. 2.civil appeals nos. 152 and 153 of 1959 arise out of the suits filed for the recovery of the amounts collected from the appellant-firm by way of demurrage and the other appeals are filed for the recovery of amounts collected from the said firm by way of wharfage charges. it would be enough if we gave the particulars of the claim in one of the suits, for it was stated at the bar that the claims for refund were similar in all the other suits. excepting the plaint in civil suit no. 109 of 1957, the other plaints are not placed before us. we are, therefore, proceeding on the assumption that the relevant allegations in all the plaints are similar, particularly as the assertion of learned counsel for the appellants to the said effect was not questioned by learned counsel for the respondent. 3. civil suit no. 109 of 1957 was filed by the appellants in civil appeal no. 149 of 1959 for recovery of a sum of rs. 295 from the union of india (uoi) representing the western railway. the appellants are a firm doing business in surendranagar. the said firm received a consignment of 125 bags of rice booked from belanganj to surendranagar railway station. at the time of effecting delivery of the said consignment, the station master at .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1965CriLJ454
s. ramachandra iyer, c.j.1. this revision case raises a question of importance on which there exists a difference of opinion amongst the learned judges of this court the petitioner is a grocer at virudhunagar. on 27.4.1961, p.w. 1, the food inspector attached to the municipality of that town, made a surprise visit to his shop, and purchased a small quantity of groundnut oil, which had been kept for sale the food inspector made no secret that the object of his purchase was to send the oil for analysis as to its purity. indeed, he gave the usual notice in form no. vi intimating the same. the oil was put into three bottles, duly corked and wrapped up, one of them having been delivered to the petitioner, the other sent for analysis to the public analyst and the third retained with the food inspector for production in court, if it became necessary. five days later, the sample intended for the public analyst was sent to him. but that authority conducted the analysis only a fortnight later, that is, on 17.5.1961. his report as to the results of the investigation was delayed by over six months and it was received by the municipality on 21.11.1961. the petitioner was given a copy of the same a month later.it is clear from the evidence that the public analyst conducted the test immediately after the bottle containing the sample oil was opened; there was practically no exposure of the oil contained in the bottle to the atmosphere before it was tested. the analyst found that the free .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1076; [1965(11)FLR46]; (1965)ILLJ473SC; [1965]2SCR72
gajendragadkar, c.j. 1. this appeal raises a short question as the content of the entry 'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products' used in schedule 1 to the employees' provident fund act, 1952 (no. 19 of 1952) (hereinafter called the act). the respondent firm, shibu metal works, runs a factory which manufactures brass utensils. under the act and the scheme framed thereunder, the employer to whose factory the act applies is required to deposit with the appellant, the regional provident commissioner, his share of the contribution as well as that of the employees coupled with the administrative charges within 15 days of each succeeding month. it appears that the respondent had been making such deposits in the past. if the employer makes a delayed payment, the government is entitled to impose damages not 25 per cent of the amounts payable by the employer. in respect of the period between june, 1955 to october, 1955, and for the months of june, august, september and november, 1956, delayed payments were made by the respondent. thereupon, the appellant called upon the respondent to pay the damages. the respondent, in turn, made explanations and contended that there was really no delay in the making of payments in regard to some months, and in respect of the others where delay was admitted, it claimed that the same should be condoned. the appellant did not accept either of the pleas raised by the respondent, and demanded the payment of damages. that led to the present .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1396; [1965]2SCR167; [1965]16STC240(SC)
civil appellate jurisdiction : civil appeals nos. 2-4 of 1964. appeals by special leave from the judgment dated the april 21, 1961, of the andhra pradesh high court in tax revision no. 20, 21 and 22 of 1957. a. ranganadham chetty and b. r. g. k. achar, for the appellant (in all the appeals). r. thyagarajan, for the respondent (in all the appeals). the judgment of shah and sikri jj. was delivered by shah j. subba rao j. delivered a dissenting opinion. subba rao, j. i regret my inability to agree. the facts may be briefly stated. the respondent-company is a dealer carrying on the business of redrying in its factory raw tobacco entrusted to it by its customers. its usual course of business may be described thus : a customer gives to the respondent raw tobacco for redrying. it redries it in its factory, packs it in gunny, waterproof paper, bales etc. and delivers it to the customer. it charges the customer at a consolidated rate for redrying and for the packing material supplied by it. the proportionate price of the packing material comes to about 25 per cent, of the redrying charges. for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the deputy commercial tax officer assessed the respondent under the madras general sales-tax act, 1939, by different orders, on the sale price of the said packing material. the assessee took the question of his liability through a hierarchy of tribunals, but they all confirmed the assessments made by the deputy commercial tax officer. it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1967All248; [1967]65ITR386(All)
ordersatish chandra, j.1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution. it prays that notices dated 6th february, 1964 and 7th july, 1964 issued by the income-tax officer under section 23-a of the income tax act, 1922 be quashed and the respondents be prohibited from taking any further proceedings in virtue of the aforesaid notices. the question raised by this petition is as to the true nature and character of an order under section 23-a of the income-tax act.2. messrs. j.k. iron and steel company ltd., kanpur is the petitioner. it is public limited company. it carries on the business of re-rollers, steel fabricators and foundry men and manufacturers of hydraulic crancrushers. it also derives income from dividends and interest from stock. the petitioner is not a company in which the public is substantially interested within meaning of section 28-a of the income-tax act, 1922. the petition relates to the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting period ending on 30th april, 19553. the petitioner company returned an income of rs. 5,88,265 for the year 1956-57. the regular assessment order under section 28 of the act was passed on 29-8-1961 assessing the total income of the company at rs. 8,44,653/-. the company filed an appeal and was partly successful there. the appellate order dated 23-3-1963 reduced its assessable income to rs. 8,33,456. no further appeal having been preferred, this order became final. on this income, income tax, super-tax and surcharge payable by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1967ACJ252; [1967(14)FLR235]; (1967)0GLR81; (1967)ILLJ186Guj
1. these two appeals arise out of a claim for compensation by the legal representatives of a deceased workman who, according to the claimants, died as a result of injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. in the two matters which are the subject-matter of these two appeals, the deceased was suffering from a pre-existing disease and died during the period of working hours and therefore, the question arose as to whether compensation was claimable under s. 3 of the workmen's compensation act and under what circumstances such compensation could be claimed. the question, in other words was, whether the death could be said to have been caused on account of personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. questions such as these when the workman had a pre-existing decease such as heart diseases, pulmonary tuberculosis and died while doing some work during the hours of his duties, have often arisen in the past and have raised points of law as well as of fact on which there have been several pronouncements both by the courts in england and india. since both the appeals involve questions relating to the proper construction and effect of s. 3 of the workmen's compensation act, that question being common to both the appeals, can conveniently be disposed of in one judgment and as the facts are different in the two cases, after dealing with the legal points. i shall deal with each appeal separately in this judgment .....
Tag this Judgment!