Court : Patna
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. The common question which arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether the substances known as Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (for short, L.S.H.S.) and Furnace Oil (for short, F.O.) use in the petitioner's fertilizer plant at Sindri qualifies for total exemption from payment of excise duty, as 'Feed stock' used in the manufacture of fertilizer in the petitioner's plant in terms of exemption notification No. 147 of 1974 dated 30.10.1974.2. In CWJC Nos. 4888 and 4901 of 1987, it has been additionally con-tended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals which were instituted in the purported exercise of power of review under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as amended), since under the amended Section 36, amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, which came into force on 21.08.1980, the provision vesting power in the Central Government to review the decision of the Board, stood repealed.3. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. These two writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar Entry Tax Act were taken up for hearing in light of the direction of the Supreme Court in order dated July 14, 2006 in Jindal Stainless Limited v. State of Haryana : (2006)7SCC271 .2. Having regard to the fact that the law in Bihar underwent many changes during the past six years, it becomes necessary to begin at the beginning and to take a brief look at some developments taking place in the past.3. The Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 16 of 1993) came into force on August 22, 1993. According to its preamble, the Act provided for levy and collection of tax on entry of goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein. Section 2(c) of the Act defined 'entry of goods' as follows:(c) 'Entry of goods' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means entry of goods into a local area from any place out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioner, Food Corporation of India, seeks to challenge the order, dated 12.09.2006 passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Patliputra Circle, Patna under Section 8 of the Bihar Tax On Entry Of Goods Into Local Area For Consumption, Use Or Sale Therein Act, 1993 read with Section 32 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 charging entry tax amounting to Rs. 2,95,72,499.92 paise and penalty of Rs. 8,87,17,499.76 paise (totalling to Rs. 11,82,90,000/-). The entry tax was levied on food-grains (rice and wheat) brought by the petitioner to local areas within the State of Bihar from outside the State and the penalty was imposed as the Commercial Taxes Officer held that the action of the petitioner in not paying entry tax on the entire value of goods imported by it but only on the value of goods sold by it in Bihar during the relevant period amounted to concealment within the meaning of Section 32 of the VAT Act. The impugned order appertains to the first quarter of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal filed under the provision of Section 55 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) is directed against order dated 05.02.2001, by which the learned Additional District Judge VI. Patna, dismissed Misc. Case (Religious Trust Board) No. 56 of 1997, which was filed by the original appellant Mahanth Chandramani Das and affirmed order dated 15.07.1996, passed by the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (respondent No. 2), by which the original appellant was removed from the post of Trustee of the Trust in question in compliance of Section 28(2)(h)(iii) of the Act.3. The Trust in question is a famous and very important Trust, namely, Baba Bhikham Das Thakurbari (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust' for the sake of brevity), situated in Mohalla Bakarganj. Bari Path in the hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. All the writ petitions covered by this common judgment have been heard together on the admitted premise that they seek to challenge the constitutionality, legality and vires of Sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has been inserted by Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 21/1993), as well as of provisions in the Bihar Rent Refixation Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules).2. During the hearing of these writ petitions on several dates no dispute or controversy of facts was raised before this Court. All the writ petitions have been argued on the basis of undisputed understanding that on account of fresh assessment of rent under the impugned provisions, treating the land to be under non-permissible industrial or commercial use and, therefore, amenable to revised rent on the basis of its market value, the liability of the petitioners towards rent payable to the State under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the State and the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BISCOMAUN').2. The aforesaid two contempt applications have been filed asserting that BISCOMAUN has failed to comply the general directions of this Court to pay the admitted retiral dues of the petitioners as directed under order dated 16.8.2004 passed in C.W.J.C.Nos. 9323 of 2004 and 9237 of 2004. Annexure-1 in M.J.C.No. 3055 of 2005. The aforesaid writ petitions have been filed for a direction to the authorities of the BISCOMAUN to pay the retiral dues of the petitioners who served the BISCOMAUN to the best of their ability and superannuated from the service of the BISCOMAUN on different dates indicated in the writ petitions.3. The authorities of the BISCOMAUN have not disputed the claim of the petitioners about their entitlement for payment of the retiral dues. They, however, contend that presently BISCOMAUN is facing acute fina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The present Government appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State of Bihar against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.12.2006 passed by Shri Munni Lal Paswan. Special Judge, CBI (AHD). Patna in Special Case No. 5 of 1998 by which the learned Special Judge has acquitted both the accused Dersons on the charge of possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources Of ihcoma so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned and on the charge of abetting the same with resosct to respondent No. 2. The charges had been framed under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the respondent No. 1. Lalu Prasad Yadav and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent No. 2. Smt. Rabri Devi.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner company has assailed the validity of notices, dated 05.09.2006, the assessment order, dated 20.11.2006 and the consequential demand notices also dated 20.11.2006 for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 under Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ application is that it is a wholesaler carrying business of hybrid maize seeds and other items. It has been stated that the petitioner company had been assessed to sales tax @ 4 percent on the sale of maize seeds for the period 1997-98 to 2001-02. The further case of the petitioner is that a proceeding under Section 19 of the Act was initiated against it on the basis of a judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Spic Phi Seeds Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. and Ors. analogous cases. 2005(3) PLJR 470 wherein it had been held that the sales tax on maize seeds was to be pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Rajesh Balia, C.J. and Barin Ghosh, J.1. In all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act of 2006') has been challenged.The petitioners, different in each writ petition, are alleging themselves to represent the interest of the persons employed at Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board, Market/Committees/Bazar Samities, the agriculturists and the Members of the Board / the Committees/Samites.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have raised number of contentions which were of various shades and colours but in substance, the contention was(A) that the impugned Act has been enacted without application of mind and a colourable piece of legislation because the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960') had been tested and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction on freedom of marketing agriculture produce...
Tag this Judgment!