Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT396; 2008(1)OLR407; (2008)14VST298(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the revisional order dated 13.3.1992 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (hereinafter called as the 'revisional authority') in Revision Case No. SA.517/91 -92, confirming the order dated 30.10.1989 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter called as 'the S.T.O.), Sambalpur-III Circle, Jharsuguda, imposing penalty of Rs. 37,00,000/-under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.S.T. Act').2. In nutshell, the background facts which are relevant for the purpose of dealing with this writ petition are as follows:The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Seepat Road, Bilaspur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. It has an unit in Brajarajnagar in the district of Sambalpur (Orissa) and it is a Government of India undertaking. The business of the petitioner is to extract c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT442; (2008)15VST587(Orissa)
..... act on sales effected by it in the course of inter-state trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified. section 7 sets up the machinery for registration of dealers and section 8 prescribes the rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. sub-section (1) of section 8, as it stood at the material time, provided for the rates of tax to be paid on the turnover by a dealer selling in the course of inter-state trade or commerce to registered dealer the goods of the description mentioned in sub-section (3) sub-section(2 ..... nos. 5(f) and (g) are concerned, the petitioner claims that the same are required for protection and control of boiler, turbines and generator during operation for generating power operation of the switchyard to transmit power from the generating station to ..... treatment.16. their lordships took into account the earlier judgment of the hon'ble supreme court the case of indian copper corporation ltd. v. commissioner of commercial taxes, bihar and ors. : air1965sc891 and came to hold that the vehicle ..... and is still kept pending. it is further averred by the petitioner-company that by a subsequent amendment dated 31.10.1988 the following items namely, 'all machineries and equipments associated ..... ) on 20.12.2007, enclosing therein the statement in a tabular form indicating various items, which in their view justified inclusion in the registration certificate granted to the petitioner-company under the cst act and in the said documents .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2909; 2008(I)OLR666
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. A common question having been raised in all these bail applications, the same were heard together. Out of the above cases, the BLAPL Nos. 7840, 8580, 8690, 8896, 8974, 8986, 9948, 10559, 10826, 11737 and 12903 of 2007 are applications filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. and BLAPL Nos. 11222 and 12061 of 2007 are filed under Sections 439, Cr.P.C. In all these cases offence under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') has been alleged.2. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection with regard to grant of bail to the petitioners. He contended that in view of the new Section 85-A introduced into the State Act, which has come into force with effect from 01.06.2006, a bar has been created for granting bail to the accused, who is alleged to have committed an offence under the Act punishable for a term of imprisonment of seven years or more. Such accused can only be granted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori71; 2008(I)OLR916
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed in public interest by one Hemanta Rath, who describes himself to be a Social Activist and also claims to function as the President of Deaf and Dumb Society in the district of Khurda.2. In this petition a complaint is made that the State of Orissa is not implementing the provisions of Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter called 'PNDT Act') even though the said Act was brought into existence in 1996 and was amended in order to make its provisions more effective by the Amendment Act 14 of 2003. The said amendment has come into existence with effect from 14-2-2003.3. The said Public Interest Litigation was filed noticing series of news items in the newspapers and in the electronic media to the effect that there have been recovery of hundreds of skeletons, skulls, body parts of children from different parts of the State. The petitioner asserts that recovery of such huge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT661
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Since identical prayer has been made in all the Writ Petitions, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The Petitioner in each of the Writ Petitions has prayed for quashing of the Notification dated 17/18th July, 2002 issued by the Government of Orissa in Forest and Environment Department in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (i) of Section 19 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By the said notification, the State Government in suppression of the notification No. 3044/STE dated 29th February, 1988 of the Government of Orissa in the erstwhile department of Science, Technology and Environment and Notification No. Env-l-3/88/14439/F&E.; (Env.) dated 4th June, 1993 of the Forest and Environment Department and after consultation with the State Pollution Control Board, declared the entire State of Orissa as Air Pollution Control Area for the purposes of the said Act. They have also prayed for a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori103; 106(2008)CLT126; [2009]148CompCas817(Orissa); 2008(I)OLR702
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Noble Aqua Private Ltd.- petitioner No. 1, who claims to be a company registered under the Companies Act and petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 is the wife of petitioner No. 2, the Managing Director of the petitioner-company.2. The petitioners are challenging a notice dated 7.4.2007 ssued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security on Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'Securitisation Act'). The basic challenge in the writ petition is that the said notice is in contravention of provision of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA').The petitioners' case is that it was engaged in the export business of Marine Food Products along with processing and manufacturing of marine food products since 1995. The company was earning profit till 2002-03. But in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT299; (2008)219CTR(Ori)16; [2009]178TAXMAN363(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. The Orissa Trust of Technical Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as 'Trust'), Petitioner herein, is an educational institution registered under the Indian Trusts Act, and in the present Writ Petition it seeks to challenge an Order Dated 2.2.2007 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, Bhubaneswar under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the Petitioner's application seeking approval thereunder, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition.2. Dr. D. Pal, Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Orissa Trust of Technical Education submits that the Petitioner-Trust had made applications for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form No. 56 D on the following dates pertaining to the following financial years 1998-1999 to 2005-2006. Date of application Financial year Total receipt (i) 31.03.2000 1998-1999 Rs. 11,43,86,923-00 (ii) 31.10.2000 1999-2000 Rs. 1,49,45,50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori164; (2008)106CALLT160; 2008(II)OLR49
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12.2.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 13052 of 2006.2. On a perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the writ petitioner was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2004. In this said suit, the writ petitioner-defendant filed her written statement. The appellant was the opposite party in the writ petition and the plaintiff in the said suit.3. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge of the writ Court held that the order which was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2004 cannot be sustained and His Lordship was pleased to set aside the said order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi.4. By the said order, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) inter alia held that there was delay in filing the counter claim and the counter claim was filed by the defendant in the suit without ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2009)26VST447(Orissa)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dated May 4, 2007 by which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the State and enhanced the assessment. The operative portion of the order is as follows:In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the second appeal filed by the State succeeds and that of the dealer is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal order of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax is quashed. The learned Sales Tax Officer shall issue demand notice for the extra demand raised as per the provisions of Rule 81 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said enhancement of assessment was made by the Tribunal without issuing any notice under Rule 50(3) of the OST Rules.4. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has fairly produced records. From the perusal of the records, we do not find that any notice was given to the assessee for enhancement of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : IV(2008)BC371
S.C. Parija, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner assailing the Order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M,, Koraput in I.C.C. No. 80 of 2007, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 205, Cr.P.C.2. Opp. Party No. 1 (complainant) had filed complaint case bearing I.C.C. No. 80 of 2007 before the S.D.J.M., Koraput under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'N.I. Act') on the allegation that the petitioner in discharge of its debts had given her a cheque drawn on the State Bank of India, Berhampur. Opposite party No. 1 presented the said cheque to her Banker i.e. State Bank of India, Sunabeda, but the same was returned by the Bank with the intimation that the cheque has been dishonored for insufficient funds. After due Notice, opposite party No. 1 filed I.C.C. Case No. 80 of 2007 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the learned S.D.J.M. on taking cognizance, issued summons to the petitioner to appear before...
Tag this Judgment!