Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC311; [1961]1SCR924; [1960]11STC757(SC)
Das Gupta, J. 1. M/s. Daulatram Rameshwarlal, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act (referred to later in this judgment as 'sellers') are registered dealers under s. 11 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. In their return of turnover for the period from April 1, 1954 to March 31, 1955, they claimed exemption from Sales Tax in respect of sales of cotton of the total value of Rs. 68,493-2-6 and sales of castor oil of the total value of Rs. 6,47,509-1-6 on the ground that these sale were on FOB contracts, under which they continued to be the owner of the goods till the goods had crossed the customs barrier and thus entered the export stream, and so no tax was realisable on these sales in view of the provisions of Art. 286(1)(b). 2. The Sales Tax Officer rejected this claim for exemption and assessed them to sales tax on a taxable turnover including these sales. He also assessed them to purchase tax under s. 10(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act on their purchase of castor oil which they ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC200; [1961]41ITR12(SC); [1961]1SCR892
Hidayatullah, J.1. The appellant firm, L. Hazarimal Kuthiala of Kapurthala, moved the high Court of Punjab under article 226 of the Constitution for writs of prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto, etc., against the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1), Himachal Pradesh, Bilaspur and Simla, in respect of reassessment of the income of the firm for the account year, 1945-46. The High Court dismissed the petition, but granted a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constitution, and this appeal has been filed on that certificate. 2. The firm carried on business as forest lessees and timber merchants at Dhilwan in the former Kapurthala State. In that State, an income-tax law was in force, and prior to the integration of the State, on April 10, 1947, the income of the firm for the account year 1945-1946 (Samvat 2002) was duly assessed, and the tax was also paid. Subsequently political quahogs took place, Kapurthala integrated into wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC218; 1961CriLJ322; [1961]1SCR884
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal by Padam Sen and Shekhar Chand against the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing their appeal against the order of the Special Judge, Meerut, convicting them of an offence under s. 165-A of the India Penal Code. The High Court granted leave to appeal against its order. 2. One Genda Mal, father of Shekhar Chand, appellant No. 2, sued Mithan Lal and other is in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad for money on the basis of promissory note executed by the defendants in his favour. The defendants apprehending that the plaintiff would fabricate his books of account with respect to payments made by them, applied for the seizure of the account books of the plaintiff. The Additional munsif, by his order dated March 27, 1954, appointed Sri Raghubir Pershad, Vakil, Commissioner to seize those books of account. The Commissioner accordingly seized those books and brought them to Ghaziabad. 3. The appellants were convicted by the Special judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC315; [1961]1SCR902; [1960]11STC764(SC)
Hidayatullah, J.1. These two appeal on a certificate under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution have been filed respectively by the Burmah Shell Oil storage and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd., and the Standard Vacuum Oil Company (in this judgment referred to as the appellant - Companies) against a common judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated December 7, 1956. The High Court was moved for writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari under Art. 226, but the petition was dismissed by D. N. Sinha, J. The matter arises to of assessment to sales tax on sale of motor spirit for aviation purposes (shortly, aviation spirit) supplied by the appellant Companies to aircraft bound for countries abroad, under the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation Act, 1941, as amended by s. 2(a)(i) of the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation (Second Amendment) Act, 1954. The Commercial Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the States of West Bengal have been joined as respondents in this Court, as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC232; [1961]1SCR809
Sinha, C.J. 1. These appeals on certificates granted under Art. 132 of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature in Assam and Writ Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution impugn the constitutionality of the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, (Assam Act XIII of 1954), which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act. The appellants moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Act. The High Court by its judgment and order dated June 6, 1955, dismissed the writ petitions. Thereupon, the appellants obtained the certificates that the cases involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution were moved in this Court for the same purpose of challenging the vires of the Act. The appellants and the petitioners will, in the course of this judgment, be referred to, for the sake of convenience, as the appellants. The State of Assam, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC186; (1961)63BOMLR423; [1961]31CompCas1(SC); 1961CriLJ319; [1961]1SCR801
Sarkar, J.1. The respondents were Directors of Hirjee Mills Ltd. They were prosecuted before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for two offences under the Companies Act, 1913, as amended by Act XXII of 1936. The first offence was that they knowingly and wilfully authorised the failure to file the summary of share capital for the year 1953 and thereby became punishable under sub-section (5) of section 32 of the Act, for a default in carrying out the requirements of that section. The second offence was that they were knowingly and wilfully parties to the failure to lay before the company in general meeting the balance sheet and profit and loss account as at March 31, 1953 and thereby became punishable under section 133(3) of the Act for a default in complying with the requirements of section 131. There was a separate trial in respect of each offence. 2. The learned Magistrate found that no general meeting of the company had been held in the year concerned. Following Imperator v. Pi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1135; [1961]41ITR135(SC); [1961]1SCR770
S.K. Das, J.1. For the assessment year 1946-47 the appellant Homi Jehangir Gheesta was assessed to income-tax on a total income to Rs. 87,500 under section s.23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The circumstances in which he was so assessed were the following. 2. The appellant's case was that M. H. Sanjana, maternal grandfather of the appellant, died on or about May 10, 1920. There was litigation between his widow Cursetbai and Bai Jerbanoo, Sanjana's daughter by his first wife, about the validity of a will left by Sanjana. Bai Jerbanoo was the appellant's mother. The litigation was compromised and the appellant's mother got one-third share in the estate left by Sanjana the total value of which estate was about Rs. 9,88,000. Bai Jerbanoo died in 1933, leaving her husband, Jehangirji (appellant's father), her son, Homi (appellant) and a daughter named Aloo. It was stated, though there was no evidence thereof, that Bai Jerbanoo left an estate worth about Rs. 2,10,000 when she died. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC196; [1961]41ITR743(SC); [1961]1SCR779
Shah, J.1. This is a group of three appeals filed with certificate of fitness under article 132 of the Constitution issued by the High Court of Judicature, Orissa. 2. The Legislature of the Province of Orissa enacted the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act XXIV of 1947 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - providing for the levy of income-tax on agricultural income derived from lands situated in the Province of Orissa. This Act was brought into operation from July 10, 1947. By section 3, agricultural income-tax at the rate or rates specified in the schedule was made payable for each financial year on the total income of the previous year of every person. By the proviso to that section, agricultural income of the Central Government or of the State Government or of any local authority was exempt from taxation. Section 2, clause (i), defined a 'person' as inclusive of a Ruler of an Indian State. The appellant in these three appeals is the former Ruler of the State of Sonepur. After the es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC204; [1961]41ITR1(SC); [1961]1SCR788
Ayyangar, J.1. Muthappa Chettiar, the appellant in Civil Appeal 107 of 1956 was sought to be proceeded against for the recovery from him of excess profits Tax assessed in respect of the business of Muthappa & Co. of which he was a partner. He disputed the legality of the recovery proceedings and filed Writ Petition 498 of 1952 before the High Court of Madras for the issue of a writ of prohibition for directing the Income-tax Officer, E.P.T. Circle, Madras, not to take coercive steps against him for the recovery of the tax assessed. This petition was dismissed and action of the tax 107 of 1956 has been filed on special leave Civil Appeal this Court. During the hearing by the High Court of Writ Petition 498 of 1952, Muthappa Chettiar (referred to hereinafter as the appellant) sought also to impugn the legality of the order of assessment also to impugn to Excess Profits Tax. The learned Judges held however that such a contention was not germane to the writ of prohibition for which he had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC213; [1961]1SCR709; [1960]11STC698(SC)
Das Gupta, J. 1. In this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner, a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of bidis and having its head office at Jabalpur within the State of Madhya Pradesh complain that its fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution have been violated by the illegal imposition of a purchase tax on certain purchases of tobacco made by it in the State of Bombay. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer, Baroda, made an order assessing the petitioner to a purchase tax under s. 14, sub-s. (6), of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Bom. Act III of 1953) for the period April 1, 1954 to September 29, 1955. The petitioner contends that this assessment was illegal inasmuch as these transactions are purchases 'outside the State of Bombay' within the meaning of Art. 286(1)(a) of the Constitution read with the Explanation and also because these transactions took place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the ...
Tag this Judgment!