Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-23-1981
Reported in : 1981MPLJ706; [1983]53STC271(MP)
ORDERK.K. Dube, J.1. The petitioner desiring to file a revision under Section 39 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, sent his revision application by registered post on 7th October, 1976. The limitation for revision is one year and according to the department would expire on 7th October, 1976. The revision thus sent reached the authority concerned on 12th October, 1976. The revising authority after giving a show cause notice as was necessary under the Rules, dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not made within the period of limitation. In the view taken by the department, the revision application, even though sent by post, ought to have reached the revising authority before the limitation expired. The petitioner seeks to challenge this order by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Section 39(1)(b) provides for a dealer to make a revision application within the prescribed period. Under Rule 57(4) a revision application has to be, as far as pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-10-1981
Reported in : AIR1981MP101; 1981MPLJ260
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 324 of 1977.2. These petitions involve the construction of Section 4 of the Madhya Pra-desh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, as it now stands.3. The Bill of the principal Act i. e. the Act as originally enacted was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette of 15th September, 1959. The principal Act received the assent of the President on 20th September, 1960 and the assent was first published in the Gazette on 1st October, 1960. The Act was enforced by a notification issued under Section 1 (3) with effect from 15th November, 1961. Section 7 of the principal Act fixed 28 standard acres as the ceiling limit of land which could be held by a person. The principal Act also made provision for declaring void transfers under Section 4 and for preventing transfers under Section 5, The first set of amendments of the principal Act were made by Acts Nos. 35 of 1961, 38 of 1965 and 25 of 1966. These amendments were give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-10-1981
Reported in : AIR1983MP12
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondents to hold elections of the Municipal Corporation, Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-- The Municipal Corporation, Indore (Respon-dent No. 2) is a corporate body duly constituted under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, the Act). Shri V. V. Sarvate, Petitioner No. 2 is a tax payer of theMpl. Corporation, Indore, and as such isentitled to vote at the elections for re-constitution of the said corporation. Heclaims to be member of the AwasSamasya Niwaran Sanstha a society registered under the M, P. Registration ofSocieties Act, with its head office at 402,Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Indore ofwhich the other tax payersare also members. Last electionsfor the said corporation were held inthe year 1965. The corporation wasdissolved in the year 1970. As a consequence of its dissolution, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-25-1981
Reported in : AIR1982MP180
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the imposition of lighting tax, drainage tax, general sanitary cess and the graduated flat rate by the Municipal Corporation, Indore The petitioner further prays for quashing Bill No. 597 dated 14th January, 1978 (Annexure I to the petition).2. Section 132 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956, enumerates the taxes which can be imposed by a Municipal corporation. The section, in so far as relevant for purposes of this case, reads as follows:'S. 132. Taxes to be imposed under this Act.-- (1) For the purpose of this Act, the Corporation shall impose-- (a) a tax payable by the owners of the buildings or lands situated within the city with reference to the gross annual letting value of the building or land called the property tax;XX XX X(c) a general sanitary cess for the construction and maintenance of public latrines and for removal and disposal of refuse;(d) a water rate;...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-03-1981
Reported in : (1982)28CTR(MP)55; [1982]137ITR300(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax referring for our answer the following questions of law :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was competent to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b) on the basis of the finding contained in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order dated March 21, 1973, for taxing the income under the head ' Capital gains' ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer's action in initiating proceedings under Section 147(b) for taxing the amount of compensation under the head ' Capital gains ' amounted to an attempt to destroy the finality of the assessment ?' 2. The facts briefly stated are that in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee received Rs. 41,300 as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, consequent upon the nationalisatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-30-1981
Reported in : AIR1982MP206
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. (First) Appeal No. 9 of 1978 and Civil Revisions Nos. 83 and 84 of 1978.M/s. Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the contractors) entered into two contracts with M/s. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the employers) for construction of civil engineering works in the Coke Oven Zone part and Open Hearth Zone part of the Bhilai Steel Project. The contract agreements being CE/96/62 and CE/97/62 were executed on 7/8th November, 1962. The agreements are expressed to be made on 28th May, 1962. The contractors started work in one zone on 12th Aug., 1962 and in the other zone on 13th September, 1962. The works were completed by 31st December, 1967. The contract agreements contain identical terms and conditions. By letter dated 18th August, 1971 the contractors, claimed additional payment for both the works on account of escalation in wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 during the currency ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-13-1981
Reported in : [1982]50STC347(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, by order dated 4th May, 1970, assessed the petitioner to Central sales tax at Rs. 11,280.18 for the period from 1st November, 1959, to 20th October, 1960. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, which was dismissed by order dated 28th November, 1970. The petitioner filed a second appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue). The appeal was admitted and it was fixed for hearing on 18th May, 1972. The Tribunal sent a notice of the date of hearing to the petitioner's counsel, Ladha and Co. No one appeared on 18th May, 1972, before the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed for default of appearance. The order was communicated to the petitioner on 23rd June, 1972. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for default.2. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of appearanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-26-1981
Reported in : AIR1982MP75
H.G. Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of return of the plaint for presentation to the Court at Narsinghpur competent to entertain the same, passed on 31-8-1976, by the Second Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 19B of 1975.2. No exhaustive statement of facts is necessary for the decision of this appeal. Suffice it to state that the plaintiff-appellant-herein brought the suit giving rise to this appeal on 18-3-1975, in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Indore, for recovery of Rs. 37,580/- on the allegations that the defendant-respondent herein was the authorised dealer of the plaintiff-company for Narsinghpur district, Madhya Pradesh. As such, the defendant was afforded the facility of purchasing goods on credit and the defendant had opened an account with the plaintiff-company. After giving adjustment to the amount paid by the defendant in the account up to 31-7-1974, from time to time for goods purchased on credit from the plaintiff c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-04-1981
Reported in : [1983]140ITR206(MP)
Shukla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, referred the following questions of law for our opinion:'1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not under a legal obligation to obtain the sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes prior to the issue of notice Under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 150 of the I.T. Act override the provisions of Section 149 as well as Section 151 of the Act, and in the circumstances, whether the notice Under Section 148 of the Act was validly issued ' 2. The assessee for the assessment year 1959-60 had filed two returns one in the status of an ' individual' and another in the status of an HUF. The ITO framed two assessments. The substantive assessment was made in the status of an individual and a protective assessment was made taking the status of the assessee as an ...
Tag this Judgment!