Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2005]141STC26(Orissa)
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This batch of writ petitions relate to withdrawal of sales tax incentives granted by the State Government of Orissa under different Industrial Policy Resolutions (in short, 'IPR'). Since common questions of fact and law arise in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Facts of individual cases as stated in the writ petitions:2. O.J.C. No. 9967 of 1999 (Petitioner--Shree Jagannath Packers) :By IPR, 1989 the Government of Orissa declared, inter alia, that exemption will be allowed to new small-scale industrial units set up in the State of Orissa from tax on purchases of spare parts of machinery, raw materials and packing materials and on sale of finished products for a period of 7 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. This was followed up by Finance Department notifications under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 granting the said exemptions. Encouraged by the said declaration, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori121
Jagannadhadas, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner who is the proprietor of Madhupur Estate in Cuttack district, against the State of Orissa and the Court of Wards of the Orissa State, as well as against the Deputy Collector in charge of the Wards Estate. The State Government by virtue of the powers conferred on it under Section 16, Orissa Court of Wards Act, 1947, issued notification No. 9876/R dated the 7th December 1951, in the Revenue Department declaring the petitioner a disqualified proprietor under Section 10 (f) (iv) of the said Act and published the same in the Orissa Gazette in accordance with the provision of Section 21 of the Act. The Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the Madhupur Estate by virtue of the said notification on the 8th December 1951. Since then, the Estate has been under the management of the Court of Wards. The petitioner has accordingly come forward with this application dated the 5th March 1952, chal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ48Ori
B.K. Ray, J.1. O.J.C. No. 886 of 1971 is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the All Orissa Transport Employees' Union, Sambalpur and two other employees of the State Transport Service belonging to the said union for a declaration that the Orissa State Transport Employees Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1971, particularly Rules 9(1), 10, 22, 23(1), 23(5), 25(6), 25(7), 27(2), 27(4), 30, 36(4). 38, 39(9), 39(13)(c), 39(19),39(50), 39(63), 39(65), 4|(2)(a), 47(f)(g) and (h) and 48(3) are void being either ultra vires the Constitution or the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (27 of 1961), the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and similar statutes and for a direction to the opposite parties not to enforce said rules and not to withhold pensionary benefits to the employees of the State Transport Service. The opposite parties are the State of Orissa and Director of State Transport Service, Orissa. O.J.C. No. 94 of 1972 is another bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT764
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has been working as a 'Rakshyak' in the Railway Protection Force. He was posted to Dhanmandal Railway Station on duty on 28.5.1983. On account of an occurrence which took place at the Dhanmandal Railway Station on 3.6.1983, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 1.7.1983. On 7.7.1983 the Asst. Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Khurda Road served a charge sheet on the petitioner. In the said charge sheet, the charge alleged against the petitioner is that he committed gross misconduct and was guilty of negligence in duties in as much as he failed to prevent or detect the theft of 149 kgs. of rice from Wagon No. SE 25093 Ex. Patiala to Bhubaneswar standing on Line No. 3 of Dhanmandal Station. Alongwith the charge, a statement of allegations against the petitioner was furnished and on the said statement of allegations it was alleged that on 3.6.1983 at 1.00 hrs. S. I. M. Khan of Cuttack and others during their secret watch, noticed that two crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1994Ori191
Hansaria, C.J. 1. Chilka. A dream land for the poets and creative artists is now in throes of trouble, leading even to 'Chilka Bachao' movement taken up by eminent persons of the State. This is because Chilka has become a 'stormy island', as a news headlined in Hindustan Times of 13-9-1993 says, and because Chilka is 'getting choked', as flashed in another news of Hindustan Times dated 26-9-1993. The net result is that Chilka, which is the largest inland brackish water-body of its kind in Asia and which used to span before eyes like a dream and offer plenty of opportunities to enjoy and rejuvenate our soul, has become an eye sore because of havocs being played by mafias who have become the real monarchs of Chilka. All this is due to 'prawn-dollar' disaser developing around Chilka, as would be seen from what is being noted later. 2. How can in such a situation Chilka, dear Chilka, provide livelihood to about one and half lakhs of people (both fishermen and non-fishermen) living in and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 50(1980)CLT13
K.B. Panda, J.1. O. J. C. Nos. 198, 202 and 203 of 1977 are in respect of Orissa sales tax assessments for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, whereas O. J. C. Nos. 195, 196 and 197 of 1977 are in respect of Central sales tax assessments for the same period, which the assessee-petitioner seeks to quash. O. J. C. Nos. 204, 205, 206, 199, 200 and 201 of 1977 are for stay of realisation of the tax demand for the above period under both the Acts.2. The petitioner is a joint stock public limited company governed by the Companies Act (Act 1 of 1956), having its registered office at Calcutta. It has a paper mill at Choudwar, in Orissa, where it manufactures paper and allied products. Opposite party No. 1 is the State of Orissa, and opposite parties Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are-the officers of Orissa sales tax department. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and adopts mercantile method of accounting commencing from 1st April and ending on 31st March, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1994(II)OLR576
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The five writ applications involve a common question of law and, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. O.J.C. No. 1166 of 1392 is against an order of re-assessment made by the Sales-tax authority Under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act in respect of assessment year 1989-90. O.J.C. Nos. 6/93 and 162/93 are by the self-same assessee against notice issued for framing assessment for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. O.J.C. Nos. 181/93 and 182/93 are also by the same assessee against notice issued for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The question for consideration in all these writ applications is whether the activity of the petitioner in obtaining cotton from waste cotton can be said to be a manufacture of a product, or merely in a case of processing on which the further question regarding exemption from levy of sales-tax under the Industrial Policy Reso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)14VST557(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by several petitioners of which petitioner No. 1 claims to be a citizen of India and is carrying on business under the name and style of Assam Transport Service as its own proprietor. The case of petitioner No. 1 is that, it executes orders for inter-State carriage of goods. Petitioner No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of buying and selling of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA). Petitioner No. 3 is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and is a manufacturer of PTA in its unit at Haldia in West Bengal, and petitioner No. 4 is the company secretary and vice president of petitioner No. 3 and a citizen of India. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners jointly as, according to them, there is a common cause of action and a common impugned order in this case.2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 3, which is a manufacturer of P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori28
B.P. Das, J.1. The writ petitioner while functioning as sitting Judge of this High Court, was appointed as the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa ('State Commission', hereinafter) and assumed charges on 21-4-1999. He remained in dual charges till 31-8-1999, when he retired as a Judge of this High Court. Thereafter, he continued as the President of the State Commission till 21-4-2004.2. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') provides that the salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service (including tenure of office) of the members of the State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. Rule 6 of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under the Act provides:6. Salary or honorarium and other allowances and terms and conditions of the President and members of the State Commission - (Section 16(2)) - (1) Presi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1988]69STC329(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (in short 'the Act') at the instance of the assessee, a partnership firm. The following question of law has been referred by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, for a decision of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, was correct to hold that the production of official declaration form is mandatory for claim of deduction for sales made to registered dealers under Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?2. As revealed from the statement of the case by the Tribunal, the assessee is a dealer registered under the Act. It claimed deduction of Rs. 2,26,781.77 as sale to other registered dealers under Section 6(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act in respect of the year 1977-78. The claim of the dealer was not accepted by the assessing officer since the relevant declarations of the purchasing dealer in statut...
Tag this Judgment!