Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1140; 1966CriLJ817; [1966]3SCR134
Wanchoo, J.1. This petition for writ of habeas corpus under the Art. 32 of theConstitution was heard by us on December 7, 1965. We then directed the releaseof the petitioner and indicated that reasons will follow later. We proceed todo so now. 2. The petitioner was detained by an order issued under r. 30 (1)(b) of theDefence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the Governmentof Orissa on December 29, 1964. He raised number of grounds challenging hisdetention. It is unnecessary to refer to all the grounds raised by thepetitioner. It is enough to say that one of the grounds raised by him was thatthe order of the detention passed by the State Government was not based uponthe satisfaction of the Government. The order was in these terms :- 'Order No. 8583/C,Bhubaneswar, the 29th December, 1964. 'WHEREAS the StateGovernment is satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Jagannath Misra,son of Biswanath Misra, vill. Bhandarisahi, P. S. Parlakemedi, District Ganjam,from a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1561; [1966]60ITR91(SC); [1966]3SCR170
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the HighCourt of Punjab at Chandigarh in a reference made to it under s. 66(1) of theIncome Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The questions whichwere referred were : (1) Whether the assessee wasentitled to have an adjustment of the advance tax paid by it under Section 18-Aof the Indian Income-tax Act in Lahore for the assessment year 1947-48 againstthe demand of tax raised by the Income-tax Officer 3rd Additional BusinessCircle, New Delhi for the assessment year 1947-48 (2) Whether the order of theTribunal directing a refund to the assessee out of the advance tax paid by himin Lahore is legal and valid 2. As the High Court rightly observed, the answer to the second questiondepends on the answer to the first question, and it is the first question alonewhich requires consideration. 3. The relevant facts are stated in paras 2 and 3 of the statement of theCase, as follows : '2. The statement of c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]60ITR425(SC)
Shah, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question for the opinion of the High Court of Judicature at Madras : '(1) Whether the war damage receipts of Pound 13,889 and Pound 85,479 constitute income of the assessee for assessment in the years 1954-55 and 1956-57 respectively (2) Whether replantation dividend receipts of Pound 20,272 and Pound 14,408 constitute income of the assessee for assessment in the years 1954-55 and 1956-57 respectively 2. The answer to the second question will be governed by judgment in Civil Appeals Nos. 157-158 of 1965, V. S. S. V. Meenakshi Achi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and need not be considered in these appeals. The only question which has to be decided is the first question. 3. Facts which are material are briefly these. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in real estates at Kualakangsar in the Federated States of Malaya. Some of the properties belonging to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]60ITR253(SC)
Subba Rao, J. 1. These appeals, by special leave, raise the familiar but difficult question, whether a 'receipt' is a capital or a revenue receipt. 2. The appellant in C.A. No. 157/1965, Meenakshi Achi, owns 5/6th share in Sungei Chour Estate in Malaya. 3. V.R.K.R.S. Firm, the appellant in C.A. No. 158/1965, owns rubber estates in Kaualakangsar, Malaya. During the Second World War, rubber estates in the Federated Malay States were either destroyed or denuded. In order to encourage planting or re-planting of rubber trees, the Government of the Federated Malay states issued an Ordinance styled, The Rubber Industry (Re-planting) Fund Ordinance, 1952, whereunder a Board was constituted to administer the funds accumulated in terms of the Said Ordinance. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, Meenakshi Achi received $5,962 as re-plantation cess from the said board. So too, the firm received $10,336 in the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1955-56. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]3SCR141
Gajendragadkar, C. J.1. The appellant Kajori Lal Agarwal was the owner-in-khas of 37.85 acres ofland in Mouza Shibnath Das J. L. No. 110 and Mouza Kholai Singh J. L. No. 112in Siliguri Town in the district of Darjeeling. The said lands were acquired bythe Union of India, and the State of West Bengal, respondents 1 & 2respectively, under the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Land(Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (No. 2 of 1948) (hereinafter called'the Act') for the Assam Rail Link Project. Respondent No. 3 is the LandAcquisition Officer, Darjeeling. In those proceedings, the appellant claimedcompensation at a flat rate of Rs. 100 per cottah amounting to Rs. 2,27,100. Healso put in a claim for Rs. 8,000 on account of the severance and othergrounds. Respondent No. 3 made an award under s. 7 of the Act on the 5thFebruary, 1951 directing the payment of Rs. 22,074 to the appellant in lieu ofhis lands at the rate of Rs. 600 per acre. After the award was pronounced, anotice was serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1350; [1966]3SCR149; [1966]17STC612(SC)
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought on a certificate against the judgment of theDivision Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar, dated July10, 1962 holding that the respondent is not liable to pay sales tax for theperiod from January, 1955 to May, 1959 under the Jammu & Kashmir MotorSpirit (Taxation of Sales) Act, 2005 (1948 A. D.). 2. The Director-General of Supplies, Delhi entered into a contract withGeneral Manager, Caltex India (Ltd.) at Bombay (hereinafter called therespondent) for the supply of petrol, HSD and Power Kero to the StateMechanized Farm at Nandpur located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Inpursuance of this contract the respondent directed its depot at Pathankotsituated in the Punjab State to supply petrol to the Nandpur Farm. 3. The procedure adopted was as follows. The Officer in charge of theNandpur farm placed indents with the Pathankot depot for supply of specifiedquantities of petrol to the farm and on receipt of the indents, the Pathankotdep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC727; [1966]60ITR221(SC); [1966]3SCR161
Shah, J. 1. By order, dated May 14, 1949 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaunpur,assessed Raja Yadvendra Dutt Dube - hereinafter called 'the respondent' - unders. 16(3) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 to pay agriculturalincome-tax for the account period 1355 Fasli (July 1, 1947 to June 30, 1948) ona net income of Rs. 72,769/15/2. Being of the view that a part of the income ofthe respondent had escaped assessment, the Collector of Jaunpur by order, datedJune 9, 1950, recomputed tax under s. 25 read with s. 16(4) of the Act for thesaid account period on a total net income of Rs. 80,859/13/6. In appeal by therespondent the Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner by order dated March 5,1952, set aside the orders of the Collector and also of the Sub-DivisionalOfficer and directed that the assessment be reopened by the Collector and freshassessment of the income for 1355 Fasli be made after giving notice to therespondent. In the view of the Commissioner, assessment made by theSub-Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1047; [1966]3SCR99; [1966]17STC360(SC)
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, raises the scope of jurisdiction of theCommissioner of Sales Tax under Rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. 2. The facts may be briefly stated. The appellant is a private limitedcompany carrying on business mainly as building contractors in the State ofOrissa. He was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. He was assessed to sales tax under s. 12sub-s. (4) of the Act in respect of all quarters ending on and in between June30, 1949 to March 31, 1954. He was also assessed to sales tax under s. 12 sub-s. (8) of the Act in respect of all quarters ending on and in between the dates of September 30, 1949 to March 31, 1950. Towards the said assessmentbetween December 6, 1950 to June 1954, he paid by way of sales tax sumsamounting to Rs. 53,220-14-0. On August 27, 1954, on the basis of the decisionof the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. :...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]60ITR417(SC)
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a reference made to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The following question of law was referred. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 23A was properly applied 2. The relevant facts and circumstances are as follows. The Income-tax Officer, in his order dated February 13,1957, passed under section 23A, found that the appellant, Gobald Motor Service, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, was a private limited company which ran a fleet of buses and lorries from Mettupalayam in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1952-53. He arrived at the following figures in respect of the total income, taxes paid, dividend, etc. : Rs.Total income as finally determined ... 2,04,222Taxes paid ... 81,529Balances available for distribution ... 73,617Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1529; [1968(16)FLR74]; (1967)ILLJ401SC; [1966]3SCR106
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raises a somewhat important question ofall, which is whether the reversion of a Government servant from an officiatingpost to his substantive post, while his junior is officiating in the higherpost, does not, by itself, constitute a reduction in rank within the meaning ofart. 311(2) of the Constitution. 2. For the purpose of deciding the point raised in the appeal, it would benecessary to state the material facts. The Southern Railway has two grades ofTrain Examiners, one in the scale of Rs. 100-5-125-6-185 and the other in thescale of Rs. 150-225. The respondent was employed in the lower scale as a TrainExaminer. By an order dated April 7, 1959, the respondent was promoted toofficiate in the higher scale with a starting salary of Rs. 150 per month. Thatorder read as follows : '2 Sri S. Raghavendrachar,TXR-YPR in scale Rs. 100-185 is promoted to officiate as TXR in scale Rs.150-225 on Rs. 150 per month and retained YPR as TXR-IC. ...
Tag this Judgment!