Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1660; [1974]94ITR204(SC); (1974)4SCC98; [1974]2SCR879; [1974]33STC219(SC)
Khanna, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in these four appeals on certificate against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is whether the provisions of Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 54 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The High Court answered this question in the negative and upheld the Constitutional validity of those provisions.2. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of Section 8 of the Act read as under :(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-Estate trade or commerce-(a) sells to the Government any goods; or(b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be three per cent of his turnover.(2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1505; (1974)4SCC408; [1974]3SCR1; [1974]33STC200(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Before the High Court of Madras, the respondents claimed that they were not liable to be taxed at the higher rate prescribed in Section 8(2)(b) of 'the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) on the turnover of their sales in the course of inter-State trade to government or unregistered dealers even though they had not obtained 'C' or 'D' forms, as the case may be, for the reason that Section 8(2)(b) is violative of Articles 301 and 303(1) of the Constitution and was, therefore, bad. The High Court accepted the claims by a common judgment. These appeals are preferred against the judgment on the basis of certificates granted by the High Court and they raise the common question, namely, whether Section 8(2)(b) of the Act is bad for the reason that the provisions thereof offend Articles 301 and 303(1) of the Constitution.2. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer 20 S.T.C. 150, the High Court of Madras held that Sub-sections (2), (2A) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)59
Mathew, J. - Before the High Court of Madras, the respondents claimed that they were not liable to be taxed at the higher rate prescribed in s. 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) on the turnover of their sales in the course of inter-State trade to government or unregistered dealers even though they had not obtained C or D forms, as the case may be, for the reason that s. 8(2)(b) is violative of articles 301 and 303(1) of the Constitution and was, therefore bad. The High Court accepted the claims by a common judgment. These appeals are preferred against the judgment on the basis of certificates granted by the High Court and they raise the common question, namely, whether s. 8(2)(b) of the Act is bad for the reason that the provisions thereof offend articles 301 and 303(1) of the Constitution.2. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer (1), the High Court of Madras held that sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of s. 8 of the Act were bad ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC480; (1974)2SCC133; [1974]3SCR31
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. In the bye-election to the Lok Sabha from Darbhanga Parliamentary Constituency held on January 30, 1972, the respondent Lalit Narain Mishra a candidate of the Indian National Congress was declared elected on February 2, 1972, by a margin of 91,078 votes against his rival Ramsewak Yadav a candidate of the Socialist Party at that election. The appellant an elector in that constituency presented an election petition on Monday, March 20, 1972. instead of on Saturday March 18, 1972, which was the last day of limitation. The petition, however, was dismissed by the High Court as being time-barred. Against that judgment and order this appeal has been filed under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It may be mentioned that Section 80-A was added to the Act by the Amendment Act 47 of 1966, whereunder the High Court was given jurisdiction to try election petitions. This jurisdiction has to be exercised ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1185; (1974)4SCC237; [1974]3SCR20; 1974(6)LC126(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1.This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the Act is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election Petition No. 2 of 1972 dismissing it on the preliminary ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 81(3) of the Act inasmuch as the requisite number of spare copies of the petition for the respondents were not filed along with the petition in the High Court. It was further held by the High Court that the said defect could not be cured subsequently even within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the election petition. The High Court further held that the spare copies were actually filed beyond the period of limitation.2. The facts may be briefly stated. In the general election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly held on March 11, 1972, the appellant and the four respondents were the contesting candidates for the Safidon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC606; 1974CriLJ479; (1974)4SCC201; [1974]3SCR9
Y.V. Chandrachud J.1.The appellants, eleven in all, were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, but the order of acquittal was set aside in appeal by the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The High Court has convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 325 and 323 read with Section 149 and under Section 147 of the Penal Code. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder and to shorter terms for the other offences. This appeal by special leave is directed against, that judgment. The charge against the appellants is that on the evening of September 17, 1966 they formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly they caused the death of Hausla Prasad and injuries to Rampher, Dwarika and Lakhu.2. On September 17, 1966 which was a Kajri Tij day Rampher and the deceased Hausla Prasad had gone to a temple which is at a distance about 8 miles from the village of Jhampur where they lived. They left the temple late i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC493; 1974CriLJ461; (1974)4SCC275; 1974(6)LC105(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention dated May 5, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas. On the same day that the order was passed, the petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order and the grounds were served on him. The detention was reported to the State Government on May 9, it was approved by the State Government on May 14 and on the same day a report in behalf of the petitioner's detention was submitted to the Central Government. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on May 29, it was considered on June 1 and on the very next day the matter was placed before the Advisory Board. The Board gave its decision on June 28 and the order of detention was confirmed by the Government on July 30. The communication in regard to the confirmation of the detention order was received by the petitioner on August 14.2. The order of detention w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC685,(1974)3CTR(SC)56,(1974)4SCC440,[1974]2SCR827
Ray, C.J. - These appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 17 May, 1976 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.2. The appellants in writ petitions in the High Court challenged the legality of notices issued by the Executive Authority, Ballabgarh Panchayat Samiti claiming Rs. 200/-on account of profession tax for the year 1963-64. The notice was issued under section 76 of the Gram Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 referred to as the 1961 Act.3. The appellants contended that the claim under section 76 of the 1961 Act was in violation of Article 276 of the Constitution because a similar professional tax on a graded scale subjected to a maximum limit of Rs. 250/- per annum had been and was being collected by the State of Harayana.4. The Full Bench of the High Court upheld the contention of the respondents that the recoveries can be made by each one of the authorities mentioned in Article 276 of the Constitution to a maximum sum of Rs. 250/- per ann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1343; 1974LabIC994; (1974)4SCC325; [1974]2SCR867; 1974(6)LC107(SC)
Goswami, J.1. These appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court in several writ applications filed there challenging the final integration list of judicial officers allotted to Kerala State under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, briefly the Act. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2629 of 1969, which we will take first, was a practising Advocate. He was recruited along with 82 others by the Madras Public Service Commission, briefly the Commission, and was temporarily appointed as a District Munsiff by the Madras Government on November 25, 1950, This appointment was under Rule 7A of the Madras State Judicial Service Rules, then in force. The Madras High Court posted him for training which commenced on January 16, 1951 and while undergoing training he was posted as District Munsiff at Calicut where he took charge of this post on May 26, 1951. Since then he has been in continuous service as Munsiff, subordinate Judge, District Magistrate and as Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC613; 1974CriLJ486; (1974)4SCC152; [1974]2SCR832
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 41, 106 etc. etc. of 1973. Under Art. 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. R. K. Maheshwari, for the petitioner (in W.P. 41). 836 A. K. Gupta, for the petitioner (in W.P. Nos. 106 & 113). M. S. Gupta, for the petitioner (in W.P. Nos. 441 & 214). T. S. Arora, for the petitioner (in W.P. 621). Niren De, Attorney General of India and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent (in W.P. 106). Dilip Sinha, for the respondents (in W.P. Nos. 113, & 441). M. M. Kshatriya, for the respondents (in W.P. 214). P. K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent (in W.P. 41). Nire De, Attorney General of India and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney General of India. Ramamurthy, for intervener No. 1 and for intervener No. 2. The Judgment of Ray CJ, Mathew & Chandrachud JJ. was delivered by Mathew J. Alagiriswami, J. and Bhagwati, J. gave partly dissenting Opinions. MATHEW, J. In these writ petitions filed under ...
Tag this Judgment!