Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR976
S.C. Parija, J.1. These batch of four writ petitions are directed against the orders of reassessment for the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul, disallowing the benefit of deferred payment of sales tax extended by the State Government under Industrial Policy Resolution, 1992, which had been allowed in the original orders of assessment and confirmed in appeals and demanding tax for the entire period.2. The facts of the case as detailed in the writ petition are that the Government of Orissa in the Industries Department formulated the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1992, (for short 'IPR-1992'), which was published in the Orissa Gazette on 1.8.1992. The policies outlined in IPR-1992 was intended to encourage the flow of investment and development of entrepreneurship in the State of Orissa. While financial assistance to the potential entrepreneurs in the form of subsidies and post-production benefits was envisaged, the main ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori25; 19(1953)CLT1
Jagannadhadas, C.J.1. This suit comes up to us by withdrawal from the Court of Sub-Judge, Cuttack, for a decision on the preliminary issue raised therein as regards jurisdiction. The suit was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack and thedefendant has taken an objection that the Cuttack Sub-Court has no local jurisdiction over the suit. A preliminary decision of this issue has been found necessary as incidental to the disposal of the application M.J.C. 164/51 that came up before us. That was an application for transfer of another suit at Balasore to be tried along with suit at Cuttack. In the course of the arguments on that application, a point was rightly taken on behalf of the respondent therein that it would be futile toconsider the question of transfer of the Balasore suit to be tried with the Cuttack-suit if ultimately it is found that the Cuttack-suit was not maintainable on the ground of local jurisdiction.It may be mentioned that during the earlier stages of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT147; (2007)10VST547(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. The Petitioner, a registered company, claims to have established its plant in 1937 to manufacture paper and pulp. The case of the Petitioner is that as there was erratic supply of power by the State, it wanted to establish new captive power generation plant under which the power would be captively used by the Petitioner's factory which is situated at Brajarajnagar. The further case of the Petitioner is that it is a registered dealer both under Orissa Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The relevant registration certificates of the Petitioner, both under OST and CST, show that the Petitioner is entitled to purchase among other things plants, machinery and accessories on the strength of its registration certificates. The Petitioner's own case is that on such certificate it continued to purchase for its existing power plant, machinery and articles on concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the CST Act and this was done to the knowledge of opposite party No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 67(1989)CLT601; 1989(42)ELT552(Ori)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, levy of duty on Electricity under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Section 36 of Finance Act 1978 is assailed by the petitioner, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.2. Petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of paper and paper board, for which it has a factory at Brajarajnagar. It has also a plant to manufacture Caustic Soda which is required to be used for the production of paper. Electricity is necessary for the purpose of running the factories. For that purpose, petitioner has a power plant to generate electricity. It also gets supply of electricity from the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on payment of charges.3. After the Act was amended in 1978, providing for levy of duty on electricity by including item 11E to the first schedule, the Board demanded additional amount fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT545; (2008)15VST497(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the assessment order dated February 19, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-1 East Circle (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessing officer') under Rule 12(8) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST(O) Rules') for the assessment year 2001-02. By the impugned order, the assessing officer has enhanced the gross turnover and net taxable turnover of the petitioner by making addition to the inter-State sale. An extra demand of Rs. 2,99,05,07,587 which includes penalty of Rs. 1,79,43,04,552 has been raised in the said order.2. The relevant facts which give rise to this writ petition are as follows.3. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at G-9 Ali Yaver Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 and Orissa State Office at 304, Bho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2003)IILLJ1143Ori
R.K. Patra, J. 1. The State Government made reference to the Labour Court to adjudicate as to whether the discharge of opposite party No. 3 Abhimanyu Pradhan from service as Cadre Secretary of the Aska Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Aska with effect from March 12, 1981 was valid and/or justified. The Labour Court in the award dated September 20, 1999 (vide I.D. Case No. 19 of 1996) at Annexure-3 held that the punishment of discharge is disproportionate to the misconduct found proved. It accordingly held that opposite party No. 3 would get full back wages for the period of suspension, i.e. from June 27, 1975 to March 12, 1981 and from March 13, 1981 till his reinstatement, he should be paid 25% of back wages subject to the condition that the management reinstates him within three months from the date the award became enforceable. The management seeks to assail the validity of the said award in this writ petition.2. Shri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, assails the award on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 92(2001)CLT348
ORDER1. Heard.2. This application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission.3. In the F. I. R. in G. R. Case No. 7 of 2001 of the court of J. M. F. C.. Soro, the Circle Inspector of Police, Sadar Circle, Balasore, has alleged that on the ground of non-arrest of the culprits in a case of gang rape vide Simulia P. S. Case No. 149 dated 30-12-2000, some local leaders and people belonging to a Political patty on 3-1-2001, held a meeting from 1.30 p. m. to 4 p. m. on the premises of Lord Sival temple situated opposite to Simulia Police-station and made inflamatory speeches. At about 4. p. m. they came in front of the said Police-station and besides raising anti-police slogan, they blockade the National Highway No. 5 at that spot from about 4 p. m, to 7 p. m, , During that period, they brought the road traffic to a stand still and did not adhere the request of the informant and other Police personnels so also many persons travelling in light and heavy veh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 69(1990)CLT132; (1990)IILLJ55Ori
A.K. Padhi, J: 1. Dispute arose in between the management of M/s Town Bidi Company, Cuttack and its workmen. The State Government under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') referred the matter to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') for adjudication. The learned Labour Court giving due notice to both the sides entered into reference. The scope of the reference to the learned Labour Court is as follows:'Whether the refusal of employment to 19 workmen by the Management of M/s. Town Bidi Co., Cuttack with effect from 21st October, 1977 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled.'The case of the management was that the Bidi Rolling Unit under which the workmen were working was a separate establishment from M/s. Town Bidi Factory. The Town Bidi Rolling Unit was closed as it was not economically viab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2005Ori159
M.M. Das, J1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants who were petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 9095 of 2003.2. Facts of the case reveal that the appellants as plaintiffs filed T.S. No. 541 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ist Court, Cuttack, praying therein for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the construction/reconstruction/repair work of the shop rooms standing over the disputed property. The appellants filed an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC vide Misc. Case No. 311 of 2001 before the trial Court. After hearing, the learned trial Court by order dated 29-1-2002 dismissed the said Misc. Case on the finding that the appellants were tenants and defendant No. 1 being a member of the Trust Board, is the Landlord and, as such, the Landlord cannot be restrained by an order of injunction and that the Pleader Commissioner who was deputed by the learned trial Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR549
Pradipta Ray, J.1. Plot No. P/13 having an area of 5400 sqr.ft. (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed plot') is situated in an area ear-marked as residential area in Rourkela. In 1990 Smt. Sushila Devi Rungta, the writ petitioner in O.J.C. No. 13,952 of 1 996 purchased the disputed plot from the original lessee with necessary permission and submitted a plan seeking permission for construction of a four storied residential building. In the said plan the petitioner proposed to construct over a plinth area of 2271 sqr. ft. with front set-back of 22'-8'. rear set-back of 9'-10', Eastern side set-back of 5'-10' and Western side set-back of 13'-3'. Rourkela Regional Improvement Trust found that the proposed plan was defective inasmuch as it did not provide for the required rear set-back of 15' and side set-back of 10'. On June 4, 1991 Smt. Rungta modified the earlier plan and submitted the same for approval/licence. After holding necessary site-verification Licence No. 204/RRIT dated Oct...
Tag this Judgment!