Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)5VST260(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. An important question has been raised by the petitioner in respect of applicability of provisions of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'M.P.C.T. Act') between 1.4.1995 and 24.12.2001 for enforcing the provisions of M.P. Hotel Tatha Vas Grihon Me Vilas Vastuon Par Kar Adhiniyam 1988 (for short 'Luxury Tax Act').2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition:It is therefore most humbly & respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased:To quash the Luxury tax asstt. order dated 21.6,2002 Annexure P-5.To hold that the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was not applicable in Luxury Tax Act, 1988 during the impugned period i.e. 1-11-1995 to 26-3-1999.To hold that Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer committed mistake in not issuing demand notice in form VI as prescribed under the Luxury Tax Act.To quash the notice for recovery from third parties issued in form 45 of the Commercial Tax Act Annexure P-7.To hold that the petitioner was not entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)MPLJ175
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. 'An Act to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes', is the preamble of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Supreme Court in the case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras : [1960]3SCR887 has observed that the preamble is a key to the enactment and it may legitimately be construed to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one, or to keep the effect of the statute within its real scope, whenever the enacting part is in any of these respects open to doubt. The scope of the Act is a progressive piece of legislation and design to settle the disputes on a new pattern hitherto intention to judicial machinery set in the country. The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be adversely affected. The landmark two decisions of the Supreme Court on this po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006MP167; 2006(2)MPHT45; 2007(1)MPLJ181
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. In this petition filed in public interest, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in permitting non-forest activities in the forest area. Though this petition related to a limited area to be developed by the Special Axea Development Authority (SADA) respondent No. 6 and has challenged the development plan of the said Authority in which forest area is being utilised for non-forest activities for construction of Counter Magnet City and permission of mining in the forest area, during the course of arguments, this being a public interest litigation, the Court has enquired about the non-forest activities in the district of Gwalior and issuance of mining lease to various persons on the forest land. In view of the contradictory reply by the Department of Forest and Revenue, a committee was constituted which was headed by Justice R.B. Dixit, a retired Judge of this Court, Committee submitted its report. State was not satisfied with the said report and furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006MP100
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. Petitioner Manoj Rajani has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby sought relief for quashing of supplementary bill of Rs. 68,740/- issued by respondents vide Annexure P. 12. For decision of this petition, necessary facts are as follows.2. That the petitioner had electric connection in his name at a building situated at 569/1, M.G. Road, Rajani Bhawan, Indore. His consumer Number is 800506. On 28-9-1999, Inspector, Flying Squad No. 14, MPEB, City Indore came to the premises of the petitioner and in his presence inspected the electric meter No. 350607 and found slow working of one phase. The inspector took away the said meter and thereafter new meter was installed. Annexure P. 1 is the Inspection report duly signed by the Inspector, Flying Squad as well as the petitioner. On 17-2-2000, petitioner received the supplementary bill of Rs. 68.740A, Annexure P.2 and P.2A is the copy of this bill. On 2-3-2000 employees of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP170; 2005(2)MPLJ353
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present reference has arisen in a different factual matrix inasmuch as certain provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act') that were incorporated by way of amendment into the aforesaid statute faced assail pertaining to their constitutional validity in the case of Jankidas Bairagi and Anr. v. State of M.P., 2001(2) M.P.H.T. 229, wherein a Division Bench declared the provisions under attack as constitutionally valid and dismissed the writ petition in limine, and thereafter when the present writ petition was filed challenging the enactment the same Division Bench issued notice and when the matter was placed for final hearing the Bench hearing the matter recorded a finding that the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had a sanguine grievance with regard to a singular provision and had no cavil in respect of any other provision and accordingly thought it condign to recommend the matter to be referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(MP)44; [2006]282ITR97(MP)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), is against the order dt. 21st May, 2001 of the Tribunal, Indore Bench, in ITA No. (SS) 63/Ind/1997 for the block asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1997-1998 (that is for the period 1st April, 1986 to 18th Oct., 1996).2. In the appeal memo, the Revenue has raised as many as seven substantial questions of law for consideration. However, having regard to the fact that in regard to matters covered by questions (iii) and (vii), the Tribunal had set aside the issue and sent it back to the AO and the AO by order dt. 28th March, 2002, has already decided afresh questions (iii) and (vii), it was submitted that only question Nos. (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) which are extracted below, remain for consideration :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the matters disclosed in the returns filed for the relevant assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(1)MPLJ352; (2007)6VST412(MP)
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of W.P. No. 280 of 1998 as a common question of law involves in both cases.2. A short but an interesting point is involved in both these cases. The question is what would be the rate of sales tax payable on the sale of coal ash (cinders). The assessment period is from October 1,1987 to September 30, 1988.3. Petitioner, a registered dealer under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'), carries on business of manufacture and sale of textile items. It has a factory located in industrial area now at Dewas. Petitioner purchased coal for use in the factory. That coal is burnt in the boiler and half burnt coal in the form of 'coal ash' is discharged from the boiler. The petitioner sold the coal ash. The controversy is what would be the rate of tax payable on the sale of the coal ash. According to the petitioner the sales tax is payable at the rate of four per cent under entry 1 of Part IV of Sched...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP79; 2005(1)MPLJ481
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Petitioner a registered company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory at Malanpur Industrial Area, District Bhind, M. P., has called in question tenability of order the dated 7-11-2001 (Annexure-Q) passed by the Collector of Stamps, Bhind directing for payment of stamp duty and penalty on a document, executed in connection with transfer of certain property conveyed by the deed (Annexure-F) dated 13th June, 1996 so also the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure-T) dated 3-1-2002 and the consequential demand notices Annexure-R and Annexure-S dated 12-11-2001 and 22-12-2001 demanding stamp duty of Rs. 23,72,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,09,05,000/-.2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally their unit at Malanpur (M.P.) known as Tyre Cord ., who were owners of the undertaking which included the leasehold land, building, immovable pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP125; 2005(2)MPHT233
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act'), the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') has called in question the sustainability of the judgment passed on 25-6-2001 by the learned IXth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Arbitration Case No. 36/2000 whereby the Court allowed the application preferred under Section 34 of the Act filed by the respondents and set aside the award of the learned arbitrator.2. The facts which are discernible from the order of the learned Trial Judge, the memorandum of appeal and other documents brought on record and are necessitous to be stated are that the respondent No. 1 is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the respondent No. 2 is a subsidiary concern of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is engaged in manufacture of cement and as widespread business throughout the country. It carries on business through its agents and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT1; 2003(3)MPLJ554
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1.Expressing the view that the issues involved arc of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 MP 116 and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan, 1979 MPLJ 644, wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not a condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a Larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.2. The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments; one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short 'the Municipalities Act') and the rules framed for carrying out ...
Tag this Judgment!