Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-17-1975
Reported in : [1975]35STC368(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. The respondent runs an Udipi Hotel and admittedly does not keep regular accounts. The respondent servers idli, dosa, etc., in the hotel and also makes certain sales, which have been described in the judgment of the Tribunal as 'counter sales'. By these 'counter sales' are meant sales of the aforesaid articles of food at the counter for being taken away by the customers for consumption. For the assessment periods from 1st April, 1961, to 31st March, 1962, and 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, the Sales Tax Officer held that these counter sales were taxable and estimated the same at 3 per cent of the turnover of the estimated sales. The respondent preferred appeals against these decisions to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, but the same were rejected. The respondent then approached the Sales Tax Tribunal by way of second appeals against these d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-03-1975
Reported in : [1976]103ITR321(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. Three questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 28th October, 1970, have been referred to this court for our determination and out of these three questions the third questions is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1975]98ITR167(SC) and has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. The question is : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to treat the sum of Rs. 2,64,167, being the amount of interest paid on moneys borrowed, as part of the actual cost for the purpose of depreciation and development rebate ?' In view of the Supreme Court decision mentioned above, we answer that question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. 2. The remaining two question which were hotly debated at the Bar run as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of the agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-14-1975
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR37
Mukhi, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question of law as to whether the cost of packing of excisable goods can be included for the purpose of determining the value thereof under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Now, we should have thought that this question has already been determined and concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union v. Mansingka Industries (1974) 77 Bom. L.R. 663.3. It requires to be noticed that in that judgment reference is made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. : 1973ECR60(SC) , in which the scope and content of Section 4 of the Act was considered.4. The learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that these decisions did not conclude the questions which arise in the petition before us. He added that there were certain contentions which did not arise in previous eases.5. It will, therefore, be necessary to examine the ratio of these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-01-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Bom165
Deshmukh, J.1. These two petitions are filed on behalf of the detenus who have been detained under Section 3(a) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 as amended and both have been detained by the Order of the Central Government. The petition itself contains several prayers like granting a writ of certiorari for calling the records and quashing the order, or a writ of mandamus, but the petitions read as whole are primarily and mainly for the release of the petitioners from custody which is described as a prison. In essence, therefore, these are petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.2. Such petitions till now were registered by the Office of this Court as criminal applications. The parties also clearly presented them as criminal applications and till the two petitions were so presented as Spl. C. As. they were always numbered as criminal applications. It appears that the understanding, or as is now being styled as misunderstanding, was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-1975
Reported in : [1976]37STC336(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') made at the instance of the Department. The question referred to us for consideration is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales of dental chairs manufactured by the respondents were covered by the entry 22 of Schedule 'E' and not by entry 56 of Schedule 'C' of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is an importer and reseller of dental equipments. It is also a manufacturer of dental chairs which are sold by it. For the period from 1-1-1960 to 31-12-60 the Sales Tax Officer assessed the sales of dental chairs sold by the assessee as falling under entry 56 of Schedule 'C' to the said Act, rejecting the contention of the assessee that these sales were covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act. The appeal of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-1975
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Bom)260
Kania, J. - This is a reference under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') made at the instance of the Department. The question referred to us for consideration is as follows :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales of dental chairs manufactured by the respondents were covered by the entry 22 of Schedule E and not by entry 56 of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessee is an importer and reseller of dental equipments. It is also a manufacturer of dental chairs which are sold by it. For the period from 1-1-1960 to 31-12-60 the Sales Tax Officer assessed the sales of dental chairs sold by the assessee as falling under entry 56 of Schedule C to the said Act, rejecting the contention of the assessee that these sales were covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act. The appeal of the assessee to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-26-1975
Reported in : [1975]101ITR292(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The petitioner before us is the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and the petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as 'the company' for the sake of brevity. The 1st respondent is the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I(2), Bombay, concerned with the 'assessment of the company and will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Income-tax Officer' for the sake of brevity. The 2nd respondent is the Union of India. 2. Before adverting to the respective contentions it will be necessary to set out briefly the facts which are not in dispute. The company has its registered office in Bombay and has in its employment about 56,000 employees. It is the agreed position that the company keeps its accounts on the mercantile system of accounting. The accounting year of the company is the financial year. Up to and including the assessment year 1971-72, the company had claimed and was granted deduction in respect of its liability for gratuity to its employees on the basis of actual payments made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-15-1975
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR1
R.M. Kantawala, C.J.1. This petition relates to a very important question regarding basic human natural rights to hold a peaceful assembly of some lawyers who are invited by individual invitations to discuss civil liberties and the rule of law while the proclamation of emergency is in operation. On December 3, 1971 the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India by a proclamation of emergency declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression. While this proclamation of emergency was in operation, on June 25, 1975 by another proclamation of emergency issued under Article 352(1) of the Constitution the President of India declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbance. After the proclamation of emergency declared by reason of danger to internal security, on June 27, 1975, the Commissioner of Police, Greate...
Tag this Judgment!