Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-23-1968
Reported in : AIR1969All504
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. It would contribute to a clear understanding of the question referred to us for our opinion If the following facts are given:--- Suit No. 6 of 1956 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, was filed by Lala Bulaki pass (Plaintiff) against (1) M/s. Jai Narain Har Narain, (2) Jai Narain and (3) Har Narain (defendants). In this suit Lala Bulaki Dass, plaintiff, claimed Rs. 22,000/- from the defendants by way of refund of advance money given by him to the defendants along with interest and damages on the allegation that the agreement dated 1-4-1953 between the parties had been breached by the defendants. 2. Suit No. 599 of 1956 of the Munsifs court, Gorakhpur, was filed by Firm Jai Narain Har Narain against (1) Firm Sohan Pal Munna Lal and (2) L. Bulaki Dass. The plaintiff in this case (Firm Jai Narain Har Narain) claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000 from the defendants, Firm Sohan Pal Munna Lal and Bulaki Dass on the allegation that the agreement aforesaid had been breached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-04-1968
Reported in : [1969]24STC77(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 were taken against the petitioner under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Assessment orders were made against the petitioner, but the assessments were set aside in appeal and the case was remanded. In the assessment proceedings taken on remand, the Sales Tax Officer noted the statement of the petitioner that it had supplied goods to U.P. dealers in 1956-57 worth Rs. 3,39,045.06 and in 1957-58 goods worth Rs. 4,07,603.50, and the material on which the petitioner submitted that it was not liable to tax in respect of those sales. The Sales Tax Officer found that the turnover had already been assessed in the hands of the importers who had paid tax and that it was not liable to tax in the hands of the petitioner and accordingly declared the petitioner non-assessable. Subsequently, however, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the two assessment years. On 27th September...
Tag this Judgment!