Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1990]78STC25(Cal)
A. K. Sengupta, J.1. These three writ applications have been filed by the petitioner, Louis Dreyfus & Co. Ltd., sterling company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom which was carrying on business as a registered dealer both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Bengal Act'), as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the CST Act'). Since common questions are involved, all these petitions have been heard together. The judgment and order made herein will govern all these petitions.2. In C. R. No. 11287(W) of 1976, the petitioner has challenged a notice being Memo No. 3741 dated 18th June, 1976, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes whereby the said Assistant Commissioner has proposed to pass an order for the year ending 31st December, 1970, to the following effect :'It appears that an amount of Rs. 8,08,869.78 has been wrongly allowed as a claim under Section 5(2)(a)(v) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1990Cal318,(1990)1CALLT174(HC),1990(1)CHN233,94CWN650
ORDER1. This bunch of 21 writ applications is taken up for hearing analogously as they deal with two important questions : whether sub-section (S) of S.400 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and particularly violative of Arts. 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution? And whether S. 400(8) of the Act is violative of Ss. 29 and 33 of the said Act2. Mr. Bankim Dutt, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, has advanced strenuous arguments to bring home his contention that Sec. 400(8) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act is ultra vires of Constituion as well as of Certain sections of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. He took the Court through various Sections of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 beginning with S. 2(5) which defines 'building'. The building was defined in Sec. 3(7) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 and according to the submission of Mr. Dutt the definition of building is substa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1990)2CALLT421(HC)
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. In the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order of reference which is Annexuxe 'H' and an award dated May 9, 1985 which is Annexure 'C' to the writ petition are under challenge.2. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the respondents in the case and the statements and allegations made in the writ petition go unchallenged and uncontroverted and have to be accepted on their face value.3. The matter was very hotly contested by the parties. Very long arguments were made by all the parties on a very long petition but the point in issue seems to be a short one.4. Benefit of verbiage the short case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was an employee of M/s. Alkali & Chemical Corporation Ltd., which was subsequently amalgamated with the petitioner.5. For certain misconduct in the matter of entering wrong figures of paints and other materials despatched from the Rishra Works 6f the petitioner, a charge-sheet wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT379(HC),94CWN233
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. The petitioners are the Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality in the district of Murshidabad and they are 19 in number belonging to Congress (I). The total number of seats of Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality is 30 out of which the petitioners are holding 19 seats and the 11 seats belonged to Left Front. The petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman and the petitioner No. 2 is the Vice-Chairman of the office of Board of Commissioners of the Berhampore Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the said Municipality). In the Municipal election held in the year 1986, the petitioners along with the Respondent Nos. 9 to 19 who belonged to Left Front were elected as Commissioners of the said Municipality and they took over the charge of the said Municipality on 17th July 1986. Since then, the petitioners along with the Respondent Nos. 9 to 19 have been continuing as Commissioners of the said Municipality. After taking over the said Municipality the petitioners have u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1990Cal262,94CWN1
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dt. 26-7-89 passed by Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore and order Nos.81 and 82 dated 23-6-89 passed in Title Execution Case No. 11 of 1981 by the 1st Additional Court of Munsif, Alipore.2. The petitioner filed a petition under O.1 R. 10 C.P.C. for addition as a party judgment debtor in Title Execution Case No. 11 of 1981 pending before the Munsif and filed another petition of objection against the execution of the decree under. S. 47 C.P.C. The executing court rejected the petition under S. 47 C.P.C. It further held that thepetition under S. 47 C.P.C. and the prayer for staying the execution petition can no more survive the rejection of the petition under O. 1 R. 10 C.P.C.3. The petitioner moved in revision under S. 115A C.P.C. which has been incorporated in the body of the Code by West Bengal Act XV of 1988: The Additional District Judge in revision upheld the decision of the Munsif that the petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1990Cal168,94CWN531
ORDERDesai, C.J. 1. The appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list.2. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the trial Court on April 6, 1989 in C.R. No.713(W) of 1988. The appeal raises the question as to the power, authority and jurisdiction of the trial Court (Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee) to pass the said order. 3. The appellant (Sohanlal Baid) is the original Writ Petitioner. The eighth respondent herein initiated a proceeding against the appellant and a few others including Chhaganlal Baid and Kundanmall Baid, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah, 24-Parganas (South), seeking investigation in respect of an alleged offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Court directed the fifth respondent herein to inquire into the complaint and to submit a report. The case was thereupon registered as Chitpur Police Station Cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1991]190ITR455(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additional payment to the assessee's employees by way of ex gratia or puja or customary bonus in excess of the bonus payable under the Bonus Act, 1965, was an admissible deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are as under :The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical and industrial gelatine. During the relevant previous year, the assessee-company paid bonus to its employees at 8.33%. In addition thereto, it also paid another sum of Rs. 74,206 to its employees by way of ex gratia payment calculated at 8.17%. The Income-tax Officer did not allow deduction in respect of the said sum of Rs. 74,206 c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1993]203ITR953(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1962-63 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was under noobligation to disclose in her return of income, the income of her minor daughter ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 64(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment of the assessee under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of her omission or failure to disclose the income of her minor daughter in her own assessment ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that, originally, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on November 25, 1962, on a total income of Rs. 1,14,68...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1993]200ITR411(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for land revenue of Rs. 41,046 was correctly treated as an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1973-74 ?'2. The facts which are admitted and/or found by the Tribunal are as under :The assessee-company carries on the business in the manufacture and sale of tea and plywood. It owns two tea gardens which are situated in the State of West Bengal, The assessee-company follows the mercantile system of accounting. The previous year of the assessee relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 which is now in reference before this court is the calendar year 1972.3. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the said year, the assessee-company claimed deduction in respect of rent and cess for the earlier year agg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1991]187ITR657(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability to pay the arrear rent and cess of Rs. 4,13,666 arose in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 and, therefore, it was an admissible deduction in the aforesaid assessment year ?'2. The facts which, are admitted and/or found by the Tribunal are as under :The assessee, a public limited company, carries on business in the manufacture and sale of tea. It owns a tea garden which is situated in the State of West Bengal. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The previous year of the assessee relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, which is now in reference before this court, commenced on March 1, 1975, and ended on February 28, 1976.3. In ...
Tag this Judgment!