Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-1978
Reported in : (1979)1GLR71
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following three substantial questions of law as formulated by this Court arise in this Second Appeal:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the suit instituted by the respondent was liable to be dismissed, so far as the claim made by the amended plaint was concerned, for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order dated August 28, 1968, Ex. 77, made by and in the name of the President by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, was not shown to have been made on valid authority?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order, Ex. 77, was void being in violation of the rules of natural justice?2. In order to appreciate the issues raised in the above questions, it would be profitable to advert shortly to a few facts which have ultimately resulted in this s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-29-1978
Reported in : [1980]45STC63(Guj)
Desai, J.1. In this reference made under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a product known as anand pashu ahar sold by the applicant would be covered by entry 11 of Schedule II-Part B to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as held by the Tribunal or it would be covered by entry 21 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, read with entry 25 of the Government notification issued under section 49 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as contended by the applicant ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society carrying on business of ginning and pressing cotton and producing cotton-seed oil as also a product known as anand pashu ahar (hereinafter referred to as 'the ahar' for the sake of convenien...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-13-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Guj149; (1979)0GLR268
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. The question that has been referred to this Full Bench is as follows:-'Whether the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Revn. Appln. No. 517 of 1972 decided on 27-1-1977 (since reported as Zabuben Devji v.. Mansukhlal Bhagwandas : AIR1978Guj36 is affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1977]1SCR996 (Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. Kunhaliumma))? The facts giving rise to this special civil application may be shortly stated: These proceedings arise out of an execution application filed for the execution of an award in Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act Application No. 2832 of 1949. This award was made on July 19, 1951. Under the award, the judgment-debtor had to pay an aggregate amount of Rupees 3651/- by seven yearly instalments of Rs. 525/- each. The first instalment was to be paid on or before Vaisakh Sudi 2, Sainvat Year 2008, and the subsequent instalments were to be paid on Vaisakh Sudi 2 of every year thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-27-1978
Reported in : (1979)43GLR238
Desai, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the assessee by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raises a question which has to be resolved ultimately on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the term 'taxable goods' in clause (33) of section 2 of the Act. In order to appreciate the problem in its proper perspective, a few need to be set out. 2. The assessee, which is a company manufacturing stoneware pipes, firebricks and lime, is a registered dealer. In the manufacture of the aforesaid goods, fireclay, which has been loosely referred to as 'earth' by the Tribunal, is required to be used as a raw material. The said raw material is taxable goods under the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III at the rate specified therein. The assessee used to purchase the said goods on payment of tax as well as against declarations in form 19 without payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Guj130; (1978)GLR895
ORDER1. This is a petition by a citizen of India, claiming to be an agriculturist in Bulsar District and also claiming to be a voter in his capacity as a member of the Managing Committee of one co-operative society. The dispute which has, been raised pertains to the election of 8 agriculturists to the Agricultural produce Market Committee Valsad. The term of the Committee was to expire somewhere in June 1976 and so 3-6-1976 was fixed as a date for general elections of the said Market Committee. For the purpose of S. 11 Of ths Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act,' a voters list of the members of the managing committee of co-operative societies (other than co-operative marketing societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market area was required to be Prepared. One authorised person was appointed and he had prepared the list and had published it on 29-3-1976. In that list, 469 voters were notified. They were as per S. 11(1) clause (i) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-20-1978
Reported in : (1979)1GLR732
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals, one by the State of Gujarat and the other by the Gandhidham Municipality, are directed against the judgment of our learned brother S.H. Sheth, J. in a writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Special Civil Application No. 748/74, by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kandla, (hereinafter called the Board) challenging the right of the State Government to recover non-agricultural assessment in the sum of Rs. 56,06, 400/- for the revenue years 1963-64 to 1970-71 in respect of lands vesting in the Board by virtue of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Major Port Trusts Act (Act XXXIII of 1963). Questions of some complexity arise in these appeals and they shall have to be determined in the light of the material facts set out hereunder.2. The Maharao of Kutch was the ruler of the Indian State of Kutch. He conceived of the idea of developing a port at Kandla and translated it into action so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-24-1978
Reported in : [1979(39)FLR287]; (1979)0GLR290; (1979)IILLJ36Guj
Divan, C.J.1. The Division Bench consisting of one of us (A. D. Desai, J.) and N. H. Bhatt J., has passed the following order of reference to a Full Bench in Special Civil Application No. 936 of 1975 with Special Civil Application No. 1122 of 1973 : 'In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court which are prima facie not reconcilable and far-reaching effect of the point of law involved, these two writ petitions are referred to the Full Bench'. The order of reference then sets out the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the difficulty was felt particularly because of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central India Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1604 and the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. R. K. Shukla, [1969-II L.L.J. 728]; A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 237. The main point which is involved in this case is the exact scope of the proceedings before the Labour Court in proceedings under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Guj96
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr. justice P.D.Desai in Special Civil Application No. 1543 of 1973. The question which has been raised is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. In order to examine this question, it is necessary to note a few facts and to determine the nature of the order which was challenged before him and the jurisdiction which he exercised.2. On 30th Nov. 1968, Gariadhar Gram Panchayat passed a resolution selecting a tax. On 26th Dec. 1968 the panchayat published a public notice and invited objections, if any, to the tax which it had selected for imposition. On 24th Jan. 1969 the original petitioner lodged objections before the panchayat. On 12th Feb. 1969 the gram samba unanimously decided to impose the entertainment tax. The objections lodged by the original petitioner were obviously rejected. On 1st March 1969 the imposition of the tax was notified. The original petitioner felt the grieved by it and, therefore, filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-15-1978
Reported in : [1982]49STC322(Guj)
Desai, J.1. In this reference made by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal') at the instance of the assessee under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following four questions of law have been referred to this Court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that as there was consignment of 50 per cent of manufactured goods and in absence of identifications, the applicant was liable to pay purchase tax under section 16 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, in respect of 50 per cent of the purchases of soyabean oil made against certificates in form 19 by considering that there was a breach of recitals of such certificates on pro rata basis (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was liable to penalty under section 45(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-17-1978
Reported in : [1978]113ITR318(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the karta of Madhukar Manilal Modi, Hindu undivided family, which is assessable to wealth-tax under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The following table furnishes the particulars with regard to the returns filed by him for three different assessment years and the assessment orders passed pursuant thereto : Sr. No. Assessment year Date of filing Date of theof return assessment order1 2 3 41. 1969-70 19-09-1973 29-12-19732. 1970-71 -do- -do-3. 1971-72 29-11-1971 24-09-19732. It would appear from the particulars set our in the above table that the return for the assessment year 1971-72 was filed earlier than the returns for the previous two assessment years and that the returns for the previous two assessment years were filed on the same date. The Act provides penalty for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return within the time allowed and the minimum and maximum limits of penalty have been...
Tag this Judgment!