Court : Orissa
Reported in : 73(1992)CLT755; 1992(40)ECC244; 1992(61)ELT256(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The legality of the demand raised under An nexure 1/A by the Customs authority is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application, inter alia, on the ground that the notification issued by the Government of India on 28-11-1986 in exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act superseding the earlier notification dated 1-8-1985 will have no application to the imported goods which had reached the Indian territory prior to the notification dated 28-11-1986 and were in the Bonded Warehouse, inasmuch as the goods were imported pursuant to the earlier notification dated 1-8-1985 and the Government is bound by the principle of Promissory Estoppel.2. The petitioners' case in a nut-shell is that petitioner No. 1 is a Company engaged in the manufacture of cement and refractories products. Dead Burnt Magnesite (for short 'D.B.M.') is the raw material for manufacture of refractories and such D.B.M. having silica content less than 4% by weig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1992Ori1
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the document marked Ext. 1 in the suit is required to be stamped. The objection raised by the petitioners who are defendants in the suit against admissibility of the said document onthe ground that it was not stamped having been overruled by the learned trial Judge they filed this revision petition assailing the order. 2. The opp. parties filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1975 against the petitioners praying to declare their right of passage over the suit land. In course of trial of the suit the plain-tiffs-opp. parties produced the document in question which, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is a deed of settlement and wanted it to be marked as an exhibit. The petitioners objected to admission of the document on the ground that it was unstamped and unregistered and therefore could not be admitted in evidence. The learned Munsif overruled the objection by order dated 19-4-91...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2000(II)OLR180
P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present writ application may be noticed in brief. A ceiling proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short the 'Act') was initiated against the present petitioners, wherein petitioner No. 1 was shown to be the ceiling surplus holder. In the said O.L.R. Case No. 164 of 1975, by order dated 31.12.1975, the matter was finalised and it was held that the petitioner and members of his family shall be entitled to retain 18 standard acres of land and balance Ac. 3.01 decimals of land was vested in the State Government. Thereafter, in the year 1991, O.L.R. Case No. 15 of 1991 was initiated apparently by applying the provision of Section 52 of the Act. In such proceeding, apart from questioning the maintainability of such fresh proceeding, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the eldest son, the present petitioner No. 2, had separated from his father prior to the appointed date and as such, fresh ceiling proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner, Geomin Minerals & Marketing (P) Ltd. which is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition, inter alia with the following prayers:"Order the opposite parties to dispose of all pending applications for Mineral Concessions filed by the petitioner and set out in the petition in accordance with its vested right to preferential consideration in view of the fact that the petitioner's applications have been filed on the first date of availability and eligibility.Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the opposite parties from considering applications for Mineral Concessions of later applicants to the petitioner until the applications of the petitioner are first considered and disposed of by according priority or preferential right based on the petitioner being a first day applicant having applied for the concerned Mineral Concessions set out in the petition on the first date of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR610
R.K. Patra, J.1. In the aforesaid three applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 17.10.1988 of the Revenue Officer passed in Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1988 at Annexure-3 (partly modified by the appellate order dated 26.2.1991 at Annexure-2 and the revisional order dated 5.10.1991 at (Annexure-1) determining ceiling surplus land at the hands of Puni Bewa (petitioner No. 1 in OJC No. 8993 of 1992).As the facts and the law involved in all the cases are one and the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Suo motu ceiling case No. 1 of 1988 was initiated against Puni Bewa (petitioner No. 1 in OJC No. 8993 of 1992) on the allegation that she was in possession of Ac. 24.30 decimals of land which was in excess of the ceiling prescribed under law. The Revenue Officer, Bhadrak accordingly issued draft statement to her showing a surplus land of 9.89 standard acres at her hands and she w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. C.R. DASH, J. Section-9 of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, as it stood before amendment by Orissa Entry Tax (Amendment) Act, 2005 (referred to as "Act" in short) provided a limitation of "three years" for reassessment of escaped turn over of a dealer. By the aforesaid amendment in question in the year 2005 Section-9 of the Act was substituted by Section-10, in which the provisions of Section-9 were retained, but the period of limitation of "three years" was substituted by a period of limitation of "five years". The short question that arises for determination in the present writ petition is, whether the jurisdiction invoked by the opposite party after coming into force of the amendment, has got to cover a period of limitation up to "five years" preceding next the date of issuance of the impugned notice or the limitation as prescribed in the amended provision is prospective in nature and it would apply only to reassessments onwards from the date of coming into force of the amendment?2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. This writ petition has been filed for declaring Rule 12CC of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short, “CE Rules, 2002”), Rule 12AA of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short, “CC Rules, 2004”) and Notification No.32/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 30.12.2006 (for short, “Notification”) issued by the Central Government ultra vires the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “C.E. Act”) and the Constitution of India and for striking off those two Rules and theNotification. The further prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the impugned order No.38/2010-M (CX)/DA dated 21st July, 2010 passed under above notification dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure-1). 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Central Government by Notification No.30/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 30.12.2006 introduced Rule 12CC in CE Rules, 2002 enabling it to impose by notification certain restrictions a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR669; (2009)20VST57(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has very fairly produced the records. But, no affidavit has been filed in this case.2. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 1.3.1985 under Annexure-1 issued to the petitioner for initiating a suo moturevision. The said notice is issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri Range, Puri. By the said notice, the petitioner has been informed that the assessment for the year 1978-79 has already been completed thereby escaping some income on which the petitioner is liable to pay tax.3. The petitioner is a company carrying on business in manufacturing of coconut fibre cushions, mattresses etc. Pursuant to the said notice, a suo motu revision under Section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, the 'Rules') was instituted and an order was passed therein on 6.3.1985. From the original records ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT89
I. Mahanty, J.1. M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Limited, the Appellant, is a Public Limited Company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sponge iron and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to challenge the Order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 83/CTK/2000 pertaining to the Assessment year 1996-97.2. This Court vide the Order dated 3.5.2006 was pleased to admit the appeal on the following two questions of law:1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the expenses incurred towards repairs, depreciation and salary paid to staff looking after the transit house indirectly is not allowable as deduction while computing the income from business solely because of the provision in Section 37(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.II)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1963Ori189
Misra, J.1. AHO. 13/61-- This appeal arises out of an application by Sri Shanti Prasad Jain under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter caned the Act). As there are large number of appeals and the descriptions of the parties as appellants and respondents may lead to confusion, the parties would be described in this judgment as petitioner and respondents in terms or the petition dated 14th September, 1960. The petitioners case is as follows :--(A) Kalinga Tubes Limited (hereinafter to be reterred to as the Company) is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Chod-war in Cuttack district. The petitioner is a holder of 3000 shares of the value of Rs. 100.0.0 each. Those shares are fully paid up and all calls due have been duly paid. The petitioner obtained consent in writing under Section 399 or the Act of the shareholders holding 13,083 shares. The holdings of the petitioner and of the consenting share-holders ...
Tag this Judgment!