Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-11-1960
Reported in : [1960]11STC691(AP)
Narasimham, J.1. The appellant is the same in these three appeals preferred under Section 23(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act against the orders of the Board of Revenue restoring the orders of assessment passed by the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Anantapur, for the years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57.2. The appellant is described by the authorities as a dealer and manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines at Nandyal. He prepares a specific for venereal diseases known as 'Satha Jambira Rasayanam', which is very widely sold. He did not register himself as a 'dealer' within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.3. The Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Nandyal, surprised his business-cum-residence at Nandyal on 12th June, 1957. He did not produce any accounts of his sales. However, the officer recovered bundles of V.P.P. money order coupons filed date-war with an abstract showing the amounts received on each day.4. Laterly, the Special Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-01-1960
Reported in : AIR1961AP483
Seshachalapati, J. 1. These three connected appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of Sanjeevarao Naidu, J. L.P.A. 77/60 and L.P.A. 107/59 arise out of the learned Judge's decision in A. S. No. 252 of 1957. L.P.A. No. 101 of 1959 arises out of the order of the learned Judge in C.M.P. No. 7142 of 1959 in A, S. No. 252 of 1957.2. We will first deal with L.P.A. 77/60 which arises out of A. S. 252/57. That appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur in O.P. No. 39/52 converted as O. S. 23/56. It will be necessary to state briefly the facts connected with that suit.3. The 1st respondent before us, Tharigopala Pedda Narayanappa had certain dealings with the 'Rayalaseema Bank Ltd.' (appellant before us), in respect of which the Bank claimed that a sum of Rs. 7560/- was due from the 1st respondent. The dispute was referred to Meduthula Narayanappa, the second respondent as sole arbitrator, on 2-9-1949. The arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-19-1960
Reported in : AIR1961AP355; [1962]45ITR118(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (XXVII of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged.2. The Wealth Tax Officer, Eluru passed orders on 26-1-1958 and 22-11-1958 assessing the petitioner and his adopted sou as a Hindu Undivided family to wealth-tax for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 respectively under Section 16(3) of the Act, and the assets of the family were made eligible to a tax of Rs. 27,779-85 nP. for the year 1957-58 and Rs. 37, 491-98 nP. for 1958-59. By notices dated 26-1-1958 and 22-11-1958, the assessee was required to pay the taxes under Section 30 of the Act on or before 15-2-1958 and 24-12-1958 respectively. Thereupon, the assessee moved this court to remove those orders on certiorari.3. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 3 of the Act, which enables the Revenue to tax a Hindu Undivided Family, is beyond ...
Tag this Judgment!