Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-14-1972
Reported in : [1973]31STC235(P& H)
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notices, annexures B, B-l and B-2, dated 5th June, 1972, issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, for reassessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The facts of this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner is a registered firm under the Act and it deals in laboratory chemicals and laboratory apparatus, such as beakers, test tubes, flasks, jars, graduated cylinders, condensors, etc., for schools, colleges and hospitals. In the year 1967-68, it was assessed to a sales tax of Rs. 15,375.67 at the rate of six per cent, on the goods sold by the petitioner, namely, laboratory chemicals, beakers, test tubes, flasks, gas jars, graduated cylinders, condensors, etc. (annexure A), in the year 1968-69 to Rs. 20,601.71 (annexure A-l) and in the year 1969-70 to Rs. 25,508.49 (annexure A-2). The Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-27-1972
Reported in : AIR1973P& H256
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated March 22, 1972, delivered by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the District Court under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act).2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act for the grant of a decree for judicial separation in the lower Court. In the petition, it was stated that the parties last resided together at Chandigarh at the parental house of respondent from May 13, 1967 to May 17, 1967. It is also stated that they would have continued to reside there but for the fact that they thought of having their honeymoon at Ootacomand. The marriage of the parties was solemnised at Delhi on May 12, 1967. The appellant set up the plea that the Court at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction and the petition could be tried only at Delhi where the marriage of the parties was solemnised. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following preliminary issue:--'Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-04-1972
Reported in : AIR1973P& H297
B.R. Tuli, J.1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated November 25, 1970, dismissing the appellants' Civil Writ No. 2721 of 1970.2. Appellant No. 1 is the sole proprietor of New Peal Textile Industries, Kashmir Road, Amritsar, who installed nine handlooms in the beginning of 1968 and started production as from April 13, 1968. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are partnership firms which installed eight and twelve handlooms and started production and manufacture of woolen shoddy blankets as from April 13, 1968, and April 1, 1968, respectively. The appellants are registered as small scale Industrial units in the decentralised sector with the Director of Small Scale Industries at Amritsar after due verification as working units actually engaged in the production of shoddy woolen blankets and goods. The raw material to produce the shoddy blankets consists of the yarn spun from imported shoddy wool and woolen rags and indigen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-19-1972
Reported in : [1974]93ITR318(P& H)
Mahajan, J. 1. The principal dispute in this reference relates to the quantum of penalty. There are two other matters that have also been agitated which will be presently noticed.2. The assessee, Messrs. R.B. Jodhamal & Sons, Simla, admittedly was assessed as a registered partnership. It was registered under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act'). This was a case where the assessee filed a delayed return. The assessment year in question is 1960-61, the accounting period ended on 31st May, 1959. The assessee did not file any return under Section 22(1) of the 1922 Act. Notice under Section 22(2) was issued to the assessee on 11th October, 1960. It was served on the 9th of December, 1960. The assessee was required to file the return by the, 15th of January, 1961. However, the return was filed on 30th May, 1962, Thus there was a delay of 15 months in filing the return. The assessee disclosed an income of Rs. 2,99,323 for purposes of asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-21-1972
Reported in : [1973]87ITR714(P& H)
1. The assessee is a registered firm with its head office at Yamunanagar. It is engaged in the business of exploitation of forests. For the assessment year 1960-61 (account year ending on March 31, 1960), the Income-tax Officer served a notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act'), to the assessee on October 7, 1960, requiring it to furnish its return of income by November 11, 1960. On the request of the assessee, this time was extended to April 20, 1961. The return was, however, filed on January 1, 1963, that is, after a delay of little more than twenty months. The assessment order was passed on March 24, 1965, and the income liable to tax was assessed at Rs. 81,346. As the assessee could not prove that the delay in filing the return of income was for a sufficient cause, the Income-tax Officer took proceedings for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-18-1972
Reported in : AIR1974P& H65
Harbans Singh, C.J. & Gurdev Singh, J.1. The point involved in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is a short one.2. Under rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Rules), before the same was abrogated, a holder of a verified claim, who was in occupation of an acquired evacuee property, was entitled to the transfer of the same at reserve price by way of payment of the compensation payable to him. He was to be preferred as against another occupier of a portion of that building who had no such claim.3. Pt. Dev Raj and Gurcharan Parshad were the two occupants of an evacuee property in Ludhina. The transfer of the said property was originally made in favour of Gurcharan Parshad. This order was set aside on an application by Pt. Dev Raj to the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the same was passed ex parte without notice to Pt. Dev Raj. Gurcharan Parshad went in appeal to the Chief Settlement Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-18-1972
Reported in : AIR1973P& H316
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.2. The facts about which there seems to be no dispute are that the appellant obtained a loan of Rs. 14,000.00 under the 'house building Loans Scheme for the year 1958-59' from the Punjab Government for the purpose of constructing a pucca residential house on the site measuring 1784.7 sq. ft. bearing No. 46 Street E. Sector 23-D. Chandigarh, on June 14, 1958 and executed a security bond for the same. The amount was repayable in thirty half yearly equated instalments of principal and interest the first instalment falling due on the date of the expiry of six months from the date on which the loan amount was placed in the joint current account of the loanee and the Estate Officer with the State Bank of India, Chandigarh. According to the statement of account placed on record on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration the first i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-16-1972
Reported in : AIR1972P& H378
Sharma, J.1. As common questions of law arise in these three cases, namely, L. P. A. No. 12 of 1968, C. W. No. 1090 of 1969 and C. W. No. 3106 of 1968, all these cases can be disposed of by one judgment, which we propose to do.2. L. P. A. No. 12 of 1968 arises out of C. W. No. 1631 of 1962. Mehta Lal Chand, petitioner in that petition, was a displaced person from West Pakistan. He was entitled to allotment of agricultural land in lieu of the land left behind by him. While he was still an unsatisfied allottee, he made a report to the Rehabilitation authorities that Suchet Singh (now represented by his successors after his death) had received double allotment in different villages and that his allotment in village Dhut Kalan, being unreserved, should be cancelled and the same land be allotted to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was negatived by the subordinate Rehabilitation Authorities. He filed a petition before the Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-14-1972
Reported in : [1973]43CompCas323(P& H)
S.S. Sandhawalia, J. 1. The terminus a quo for the period of limitation prescribed for presenting an application under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, has been the primary subject of debate in this case. The issue arises in the following circumstances.2. The official liquidator of the Punjab Commerce Bank Ltd. has moved this application under Section 235 read with Section 244B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, praying that the conduct of the respondent, Shri Ram Narain Virmani, be examined and he be held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 19,054 with interest, etc., by way of compensation in respect of misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust of the amount above-said.3. On October 11, 1950, the respondent, Shri R.N. Virmani, was appointed the liquidator of the Punjab Commerce Bank Ltd. by the order of the High Court. He held that office for nearly 17 years and resigned the same on November 3, 1967, when the present applicant was appointed in his place. Earlier, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-26-1972
Reported in : AIR1973P& H88
ORDER1. This order will dispose of C.W. 914 of 1970, M/s. Nishkam Udyog v. Union of India, C.W. 915 of 1970, M/s. Mithal Industries v. Union of India and C.W. 916 of 1970, M./s. Viswakarma Industries v. Union of India, as common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions. The facts in all the three petitions are similar and, in order to decide the points involved, it is sufficient to state the facts of C.W. 916 of 1970.2. The petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and is engaged in the manufacture of medical and surgical equipments and appliances from imported stainless steel sheets at Hiranagar, district Kathua in Jammu & Kashmir State. It is thus a priority industry as entered at Item No.39 in the Appendix to Public Notice No. I & E/IV/2-1/66/A, dated August 4, 1966 a copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The firm is registered with the Director of Industries, J&K; State, as an actual user importer under Small Scale Industries Regis...
Tag this Judgment!