Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Is the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, subject to levy of sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (in short, 'the TST Act') and if so, who is liable to pay such a tax, are two important questions raised in this series of appeals.2. Yet another question, raised in the present set of appeals, is as to whether Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (in short, the 'TST Rules'), can be treated to be a valid piece of delegated legislation, when it mandates every person, responsible for making payment to the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period), to deduct an amount equal to 4 percentum of the dues of such a transfer towards part or full satisfaction of the sales tax payable, under the TST Act, on account of such transfer of the right.3. Before we make endeavour to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of these four writ appeals, which have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 03.08.2001, whereby the Civil Rule Nos. 73/1996, 256/1997, 520/1997 and 77/1998 have been disposed of by quashing the impugned memoranda, dated 24.01.1994 and 20.05.1995, both the memoranda having been issued by the Department of Revenue, Government of Tripura.2. Let us, first, take note of the material facts and circumstances, which led to the quashing of the memoranda aforementioned:(i) By the two memoranda, dated 24.01.94 and 20.05.1995, aforementioned, all the Heads of Departments were directed to continue to deduct, at source, while making payments of bills, an amount equivalent to 4% of the total gross amount of each bill, for execution of works contract other than RCC bridge and so far as the RCC bridges are concerned, deduction @ 1.57% of the total gross amount of each bill was directed to be made. By these memoranda, dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A. Hazarika, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated January 24, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati in Income-tax Appeal No. 118(Gau)/99 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The facts of the present appeal may be briefly stated at the very outset.The appellant is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), assessed to tax by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Guwahati. The status of the assessee is that of Hindu undivided family and the assessment year under consideration is 1995-96. During the assessment proceeding a claim was made by the assessee of share business loss amounting to Rs. 3,99,860. On various grounds mentioned in the assessment order dated March 31, 1998, the Assessing Officer concluded that the transaction in shares as claimed by the assessee cannot be treated as genuine. Accordingly, the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A. Hazarika, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the order dt. 24th Jan., 2003, passed by the Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati, in ITA No. 118/Gau/1999 for the asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The facts of the present appeal may be briefly stated at the very outset.The appellant is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), assessed to tax by the ITO, Ward 1(5), Guwahati. The status of the assessee is that of HUF and the assessment year under consideration is 1995-96. During the assessment proceeding a claim was made by the assessee of share business loss amounting to Rs. 3,99,860. On various grounds mentioned in the assessment order dt. 31st March, 1998, the AO concluded that the transaction in. shares as claimed by the assessee cannot be treated as genuine. Accordingly, the share business loss of Rs. 3,99,860 was not allowed and the same was added back to the total income of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. Whereas the appeal registers a challenge to the order dated 9.4.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat in Misc (J) Case No. 102/2007 arising out of Title Suit No. 1/2007 granting ad interim injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs restraining the petitioner, his men, agents etc. from dispossessing them (respondents-plaintiffs) from the suit property pending disposal of the suit, the revision petition is directed against an order of the same date passed in Misc (J) Case No. 4/2007 registered on an application filed under Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') in Title Execution Case No. 1/2007 by the respondent-plaintiff, thereby staying the proceeding till disposal of the aforementioned suit. By the said order, the application under Section 47 of the Code submitted for stay of the execution proceeding by the Opposite party/judgment debtor was also allowed.2. Misc Case No. 1916/2007 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The material facts, which have given rise to these two writ petitions, are thus : The writ petitioners are works contractors and engaged in civil construction works. In the course of execution of the works contract, the petitioners use various goods including the goods, which stand declared as goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and known as declared goods. When the Superintendent of Taxes informed the petitioners that all goods including declared goods, used in execution of works contract, shall, in terms of Schedule V to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, 'the Assam VAT Act'), be subject to levy of value added tax (in short, 'the VAT') at 12.5 per cent, the petitioners disputed the assertion that the declared goods too, used in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 71(K)/2000 is found guilty of offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati by judgment dated 14.11.2006. The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to award capital punishment to the accused obviously for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Sessions Judge did not record to have awarded any punishment insofar as the charge under Section 201 IPC is concerned, though the accused is also found guilty of the said offence. For the sake of completion of the narration of facts, it is to be mentioned here that though the accused was also charged and tried under Section 377 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge did not record a finding of guilt.2. In view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge chose to award the capital punishment, the matter is placed before this Court for confirmation of the punishment as required under Section 366 CrP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The appellant-accused of the present appeal is challenging the judgment dated 13.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 70(T)/01 convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the murder of his son Bablu Murah.2. Heard Miss N. Hawelia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant-accused and also Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.3. The prosecution story, as unfolded during the trial, in a nutshell are that the PW-8, Dr. Pratap Ch. Saikia, Medical Officer of Rajgarhali General Hospital, Bozaloni Group Limited lodged an ejahar that on 23.3.2001 at about 9.30 P.M. Bablu Murah, aged about 7 years (deceased victim) was assaulted with sharp weapon over the head by his father Dandiya Murah of Bozaloni Tea Estate (appellant-accused) and Bablu died on the way to Rajgarh General Hospital bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. Two aspirants to the office of the joint Mutawallis in Wakf Trust created by late Haji Elahi Baksh have filed these applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 challenging the judgment and order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Shillong. By this impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer of the tribunal has held that both the petitioners are not entitled to inherit/succeed the Mutawalliship on the death of founder Mutawallis. Being aggrieved with this order, the aforesaid writ petition and the revision application have been filed. Since the cases are arising out of the same order and since the subject matter is one and the same, both the revision applications were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. I have heard Shri Ranjit Kar, learned Counsel representing Md. Taiyab, Mr. D.K. Thapa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Md. Zakar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.P. Katakey, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment and order dated 4.6.1997 passed in First Appeal No. 8 (SH) of 1996, filed by the present respondent No. 1, where by and where under the said appeal has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 3.4.1996 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khashi Hills District, Shillong. In Title Suit No. 8(T) of 1995 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, on the ground that the said suit is barred by the principle of res judicata because of the Judgment and order dated 6.11.1990 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khashi Hills District, Shilling in Title Civil Appeal No. 4(T) 1989 confirmed by the High Court vide Judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 passed in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991.2. The facts in brief, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal, are noted here in below:(i) The suit being Title Suit No. 9(T) of 1982 was filed by the...
Tag this Judgment!