Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1973]32STC171(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the Board of Revenue has referred the following question to this court:Whether, the petitioner-railway, in so far as it effects sales of unclaimed and unconnected goods under the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act, is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?2. The South Eastern Railway, at whose instance this reference has been made, disposes of unclaimed goods for consideration of money. On the 29th August, 1957, the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range Charge, Calcutta, issued a notice in form No. VI under Sections 11 and 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, South Eastern Railway, directing him to produce on 12th November, 1957, the books of accounts and other documents for the purpose of assessment of tax payable under the said Act in respect of the period of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1974P& H140
B.S. Dhillon, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 708, 791, 792, 893, 900, 907, 908, 1022, 1224, 1225 and 1226 of 1972. Since in all these writ petitions the scheme finally approved by the State Government under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter referred to as the Act), Annex. 'B' with this writ petition, is being impugned on the same and similar grounds, therefore, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts and the grounds as mentioned in Civil Writ No. 708 of 1972, may only be mentioned because the facts and ground of challenge in all these writ petitions are the same. All the petitioners are existing transport operators. The Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Private Limited, Sirhind, petitioner in Civil Writ No. 708 of 1972, with its head quarters at Sirhind, is holding State Carriage permits issued by the State Transport Commissioner Punjab on various routes. This Company was also operating on Ludhiana Ambala Cantt. a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]34STC135(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These two cases relate to the same assessee and involve the same point. The assessee is the Madras Port Trust represented by its Chairman. The assessee was periodically effecting sales through M/s. Murray and Company, Auctioneers, of unclaimed and unserviceable articles. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, it has effected sales of such articles to the extent of Rs. 8,20,312.88 and Rs. 9,76,058.25 respectively. The assessing authority took the view that the sales of such articles effected by the assessee are taxable. In that view, it determined the taxable turnover of the assessee for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 at Rs. 8,06,627.88 and Rs. 9,62,012.25 respectively after rejecting the contention of the assessee that such sales are not in the course of carrying on of a business activity as contemplated by the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Act).2. The assessee thereafter appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ336
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. These two cases relate to the same assessee and involve the same point. The assessee is the Madras Port Trust represented by its Chairman. The assessee was periodically effecting sales through M/s. Murray & Company, Auctioneers of unclaimed and unserviceable articles. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, it has effected sales of such articles to the extent of Rs. 8,20,312-88 P. and Rs. 9,76,058-25 P. respectively. The assessing authority took the view that the sales of such articles effected by the assessee are taxable. In that view it determined the taxable turnover of the assessee for the year 1964-65 and 1965-66 at Rs. 8,06,627-88 P. and Rs. 9,62,012-25 P respectively after rejecting the contention of the assessee that such sales are not in the course of carrying on of a business activity as contemplated by the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Act).2. The Assessee thereafter appealed to the Appellate Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP10
Tankha, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order (Annexure D) dated 12th July, 1973 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Sagar (respondent No. 1) and also the permit issued to the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the said order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a State Transport Undertaking established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The petitioner is operating its stage carriages on Sagar Jabalpur via Sanodha, Garhakota, Abhana, Jabera and Katangi under Scheme No. 9 approved under the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A portion of this route between Garhakota and Abhana has been allowed to be operated by private operators under the Scheme with a restriction not to pick up and set down passengers between the aforesaid portion.3. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj133; 1973()WLN717
Beri, C.J.1. Appellant Kulwant Rai challenged the draft scheme for nationalisation of Bikaner-Sri Ganganagar route on several grounds before a learned Single Judge of this Court who by his detailed order dated 3-7-1973 dismissed the writ petition in limine. Kulwant Rai has come up in special appeal before us, We had issued a notice to the respondents to show cause why this appeal be not admitted and in answer to that the learned Advocate General. Mr. Rai Narain Munshi and Mr. N, B. Mathur appeared for the respondents.2. Mr. L. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised 3 grounds before us. The first is that the supersession of the Raiasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') under Section 38 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Corporations Act') amounted to a complete extinction of the Corporation as originally constituted and, therefore, under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1'939 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975AP138
Ekbote, C.J.1. The nationalisation of transport in a part of the Andhra Pradesh State had a chequered career. It is unnecessary to go into the history of the ups and downs of the various attempts made to nationalise. It is enough to say that in all 218 schemes were published, 133 of them were published on 15-11-1972 in the State Gazette. The other 85 were published on 10-4-1973. Objections were invited from the existing operators and others against the schemes so published. iN 40 schemes no objections whatsoever were filed. In regard to 178 schemes, however, objections were filed mostly by the existing operators. The Home Secretary, who was duly authorised to hear and enquire into objections commenced the hearing on 31-7-1973 and concluded the same on 14-8-1973.2. On a consideration of the proposed schemes in the light of objections that were filed, the Home Secretary approved 35 schemes on 3-9-1973. Out of them 32 schemes as approved were published in the Gazette on 15-11-1972. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN906
M.L. Joshi, J.1. By these seven writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of the various draft schemes for nationlisation of Motor Transport Service under Section 68C of the Moter Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the M.V Act) has been challenged by the operators of the affected routes on various grounds, I had issued a notice to the respondents to show cause why the petitions be not admitted and in answer to that, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned Advocate General, Mr. M D. Purohit, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. R.N. Munshi, appeared for the respondents.2. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 881 of 1973 (S. Kripalsingh v. State of Rajasthan) and 1447 of 1973 (Messrs Gram Transport Service v. State of Rajasthan) pertain to the draft scheme relating to Jaipur Pilani route; Civil Writ Petitions Nos 825 of 1973 (Messrs Green Bus Service Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan) and 1448 of 1973 (Rajasthan Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan) relate to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN917
Kan Singh, J.1. We have before us a bunch of 63 writ petitions. The petitioners therein challenge the validity of certain schemes of nationalisation over some routes in Rajasthan and as they raise some common questions of law, they were called on for hearing together and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. By a notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 29-11-72, the Rajasthan State had nationalished 3 routes in the Kota region which were Kota-Jhalawar-Aklera, Kota Chechat and Kota-Ramganjrnandi. In pursuance of the scheme the Rajasthan State Roadways Department started providing transport services over these routes. It may be mentioned that though the routes both the termini of which fell on the nationalised routes were covered by the approved scheme, the other routes which partially overlapped (i e both or ore of the termini of which routes were beyond the nationalised routes and overlapping was on a portion) were left untouched and the operators of those ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ262Kant
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by a Division Bench under Section 7 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961:(1) Whether the regulations framed by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation regulating the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the chief executive officer, or general manager and the chief accounts officer under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, have statutory force? and(2) Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, to obey the regulations framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950?2. This writ petition had come up in the first instance before Malimath, J., who referred it to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Mysore High Court Act, as his Lordship noticed conflicting decisions of this Court on the afores...
Tag this Judgment!