Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)1SCC471; [1971]3SCR398
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act 1 of 1923 entertainment duty is chargeable on the total collections from the visitors to a theatre. On March 18, 1960 the Collector, Junagarh issued instructions to his subordinate officers directing them to levy entertainment duty at the prescribed rate only on the net price receivable by the proprietor of the theatre and not on the total amount including entertainment duty collected from the visitOrs. Entertainment duty so computed was paid till January 1962 by the appellants who own a theatre at Junagadh.2. On January 11, 1962 the Government of Gujarat issued a memorandum that 'the duty (entertainment duty) is a percentage of the payment for admission i.e. the amount which a person pays for being admitted to witness the entertainment, inclusive of the various items mentioned in Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923. The amount which a person pays includes both sums-(i) what the Manager has to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC712; (1971)1SCC424; [1971]3SCR469
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court dated 8th March 1965 setting aside the decree of the Trial Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.2. The appellant had submitted a tender to construct mile 3 of Nainital Bhowali Road at 13 per cent below the rates given in Schedule B to the notice issued by the Government of the United Provinces on the 30th September, 1946. This tender was accepted and a contract was signed on 20th November 1946. It is alleged by the appellant that the rates given in Schedule B were based on the calculation that stone required for the road construction work would be available at a distance of 26 chains while as a matter of fact no stone was available within that distance. The appellant had in fact to get stone from Gadhera and Bhumadar from a distance of 79 and 110 chains respectively. It is his contention that by reason of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC730; 1972(0)BLJR528; [1971]79ITR603(SC); (1971)1SCC453; [1971]3SCR442
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an assessee's appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dismissing in limine its writ petition under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The assessee is having construction contracts under the Railways as well as the Government. It is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1960-61, relevant to the accounting year 1959-60, after the assessee submitted its income-tax return, it was asked by the Income-tax Officer during the income-tax assessment proceedings to produce before him its books of account and the other relevant papers. The assessee also produced before him a statement showing various creditors from whom it had borrowed on Hundis during the accounting year in question. In that statement it gave the full names and addresses of the alleged creditOrs. After enquiry, the assessee's total income was assessed at Rs. 69,886/-. On June 3, 1966, the 1st respondent (Income-tax Officer, Ward 'A', Muzaffarpur) issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1635; [1971]79ITR609(SC); (1971)1SCC462; [1971]3SCR410; 1971(III)LC209(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Burlop Dealers Ltd.-hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'-is a limited company. For the assessment year 1949-50 the assessee submitted a profit and loss account disclosing in the relevant year of account Rs. 1,75,875/-as profit in a joint venture from H. Manory Ltd. and claimed that Rs. 87,937/-being half the profit earned from H. Manory Ltd. was paid to Ratiram Tansukhrai under a partnership agreement. The assessee stated that on June 5, 1948, it had entered into an agreement with H. Manory Ltd. to do business in plywood chests and in consideration of financing the business the assessee was to receive 50% of the profits of the business. The assessee claimed that it had entered into an agreement on October 7, 1948, with Ratiram Tansukhrai for financing the transactions of H. Manory Ltd. in the joint venture, and had agreed to pay to Ratiram Tansukhrai 50% of the profit earned by it from the business with H. Manory Ltd.2. The Income Tax Officer accepted the return ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2081; (1971)1SCC326; [1971]3SCR457; [1971]27STC466(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals by special leave from a judgment of the Madras High Court involve the question of the validity of a notification No. 976 issued under the provisions of the Tami Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called the Act, which was to come into force on April 1, 1959.2. The respondents are dealers in fruits in the State of Tamil Nadu. Originally under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 the sale of fruits was liable to tax. By means of a notification dated March 25, 1954 the sale of fruits among other commodities was exempted from payment of tax under Section 6 of that Act. The 1939 Act was repealed and re-enacted by the Act which was published in the Official Gazette on March 18, 1959 but which was to come into force, as stated before, on April 1, 1959. On March 28, 1959 the Government passed G.O. No. 976 which was as follows :The Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which will replace the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1939, will come into force from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2083; (1972)4SCC168; 1971(III)LC215(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J1. The appellant is a company. It entered into a contract with the Union of India of November 17, 1959 for fabrication of tank Shells at Kalai Kunda. The fabricated Shells were to be Tolled through the tracks allotted by the Air Force authorities. After the manufacture of Shells, the appellant applied for permission to roll the Shells. The permission asked for was granted on March 24, 1960. The appellant was asked to roll those Shells through the airfield and the rolling was to be done on Sundays and Mondays which were not flying days. In pursuance of the said permission the appellant rolled some Shells on February 28, 1962. While the Shells were being rolled, a shell hit a parked aircraft on the apron. The Air Force authorities assessed the damages caused to the plane at Rs. 51,414/-. Thereafter the appellant was called upon to pay the said amount. The appellant denied its liability to pay the amount demanded. Then the authorities threatened the appellant that they would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC717; [1971]79ITR582(SC); (1972)4SCC88; [1971]79STC583(SC)
J.C. Shah, J.1. These appeals are filed with certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat. They arise out of proceedings for re-assessment of income of the respondent relating to assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. The respondent - who will hereinafter be called 'the assessee' - carried on the business in ghee at Porbandar, which was at all material times relevant to the assessments in question outside the taxable territories. The Income-tax Officer C-III Ward, Bombay, initiated proceedings against the assessee as a non-resident for the assessment years, amongst others, 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. The assessee had in the relevant years of accounts a current account with the Bank of India Ltd., in Bombay and sale proceeds in respect of large quantities of ghee supplied outside taxable territories were credited in that account and were then transferred to Porbandar. The assessee had also a current account with the firm Shamji Kalidas and Company at Bombay and in this acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2551; (1971)1SCC477; [1971]3SCR573
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated 3 August, 1965 of the High Court of Allahabad decreeing the respondent's suit for the sum of Rs. 4,11,367.92.2. The respondent filed the suit on 16 May, 1953 against the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 4,11,367.92 with interest and costs.3. The respondent's case in short was that the respondent on 30 September, 1942 deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with M/s. India Supplies whereof the appellants were the partners on the condition that interest would be payable @ 7/9 percent per month and that the respondent would be entitled to withdraw the deposition demand.4. The suit was filed in the court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur. The evidence was concluded before the Civil Judge, Kanpur. Thereafter by an order dated 12 May, 1964 of the High Court at Allahabad the suit was transferred to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The High Court heard the suit and on 3 August, 1965 decreed the suit in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC722; 1971CriLJ646; (1971)1SCC433; [1971]3SCR478; 1971(III)LC270(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. The appellant, Basudev Hazra, was a leaseholder in respect of tolls of the public ferry at Sadar Ghat on the outskirts of Burdwan town for crossing the river Damodar. This lease was for a period of three years (August 14, 1963 to August 13, 1966) : Ex. 2. On November 30, 1964 Matiar Rahman Mandal filed a complaint against the appellant in the court of the Sadar Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial), Burdwan alleging that the appellant used to realise illegally 20 nP. per cart from the cultivators who used to drive their carts across the dry bed of the river. The matter was reported to the S.D.O. who directed an enquiry. This infuriated the appellant. On November 29, 1964 the appellant realised double the amount of toll and on protest and refusal by the complainant he was threatened with violence by the appellant.2. The Magistrate trying the appellant for offences under Sections 23 and 24 of the Bengal Ferries Act, I of 1885 convicted him of both the offences. The appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1628; (1972)4SCC361; [1971]27STC473(SC); 1971(III)LC533(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. A Hindu Undivided Family was registered in the name of Doma Sao Kishun Lal as a dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The family was assessed to tax Under Section 10 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1944 for six quarters ending March 31, 1947. The Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 was repealed and was replaced by the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, but Under Section 32 of the Repealing Act liability to pay tax incurred before the date of such repeal and proceedings pending on the said date as also all proceedings initiated after the commencement of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 and relating to any such liability incurred before the date of such repeal were to be continued and disposed of or initiated and disposed of, as the case may be, as if the 1947 Act had not been enacted.2. In 1962 the Commissioner of Sales Tax revised the assessment of the Hindu Undivided Family and assessed it to pay Rs. 40,729.89 as tax Proceedings were then commenced for realization of the dues and a tax ...
Tag this Judgment!