Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1605; [1977]107ITR938(SC); (1977)2SCC378; [1977]3SCR153
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court answering in favour of the Revenue a question which was directed to be referred by the Tribunal under Section 66(2) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. The controversy between the parties arises out of an assessment made on the assessee as a Hindu Undivided Family for the assessment year 1948-49 the corresponding accounting year being the financial year 1947-48. The assessee was at the material time a Hindu Undivided Family with one Roshan Lal as its manager and karta. Till June 1947 the assessee was carrying on business in gold and jewellery at Chowk Surjan Singh in Lahore. In view of the pending partition of India Roshan Lal decided to move out of Lahore and accordingly he transferred a sum of Rs. 12,094/-from the account of the assessee with the Lahore Branch of the Punjab. National Bank Ltd. to the New Delhi Branch of that bank in June 1947. He also transferred from the Lahore Br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1505; (1977)2SCC250; [1977]3SCR165; [1977]39STC372(SC); 1977(9)LC271(SC)
S.M. Fazal Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by sepecial leave by the assessee who was a contractor in fabrication or Vanguard rolling shutters and steel works. The assessee manufactures iron shutters according to specifications given by the parties and fixes the same at the premises of the customers. In the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee received an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,08,633-08 in the execution of such contracts. This amount was claimed by the assessee as not being liable to sales tax during the assessment year 1965-66 on the ground that the same represented the proceeds of work contracts. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the plea of the assessee and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on appeal also affirmed the order of the Sales Tax Officer. But the plea of the assessee appears to have found favour with the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax who decided that the amount was not exigible to sales tax, because the contracts in question were work contracts. Thereafter at the instance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)190
Fazal Ali, J. - This is an appeal by special leave by the assessee who was a contractor dealing in fabrication of Vanguard rolling shutters and steel works. The assessee manufactures iron shutters according to specifications given by the parties and fixes the same at the premises of the customers. In the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee received an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,08,633.08 in the execution of such contracts. This amount was claimed by the assessee as not being liable to sales tax during the assessment year 1965-66 on the ground that the same represented the proceeds of work contracts. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the plea of the assessee and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on appeal also affirmed the order of the Sales Tax Officer. But the plea of the assessee appears to have found favour with the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax who decided that the amount was not exigible to sales tax, because the contracts in question were work contracts. Thereafter at the instance o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1638; (1977)2SCC246; [1977]3SCR149; [1977]39STC378(SC); 1977(9)LC268(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether green ginger falls within the category of goods described as 'vegetables, green or dried, commonly known as 'sabji, tarkari or sak' in Item (6) of Schedule 1 to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. If it is covered by this description, it would be exempt from sales tax imposed under the provisions of that Act. The Sales Tax authorities held that green ginger is used to add flavour and taste to food and it is, therefore, not vegetable commonly known as 'sabji, tarkari or sak'. The orders of the Sales Tax authorities were challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and a Single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petition disagreed with the view taken by the Sales Tax authorities and held that green ginger is vegetable within the meaning of that expression as used in items (6) of the First Schedule to the Act. This view of the learned Single Judge wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)183
Bhagwati, J. - The short question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether green ginger falls within the category of goods described as 'vegetables, green or dried, commonly known as sabji, tarkari or sak in Item (6) of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. If it is covered by this description, it would be exempt from sales tax imposed under the provisions of that Act. The Sales Tax authorities held that green ginger is used to add flavour and taste to food and it is, therefore, not vegetable commonly known as 'sabji, tarkari or sak'. The orders of the Sales Tax authorities were challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and a Single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petition disagreed with the view taken by the Sales Tax authorities and held that green ginger is vegetable within the meaning of that expression as used in Item (5) of the first Schedule to the Act. This view of the learned Single Judge was affirm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1304; 1977CriLJ814; (1977)2SCC233; [1977]3SCR143
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court confirming the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of imprisonment for life.2. Ashok Kumar aged about 17 years and his younger brother, Vijay Kumar, below the age of 16 years were charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Rajinder Kumar aged about 23 years. Vijay Kumar was sent for trial under the Children Act, 1960, and is not, therefore, before us.3. In June, 1971, Jai Bhagwan, father of the accused, had complained to the police against the deceased, Rajinder Kumar, alleging that he had kidnapped his daughter, Saroj Kumari. It is said that Saroj Kumari was recovered from the company of Rajinder Kumar at Ahmedabad and Rajinder Kumar was charged for offences under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code, and the case was pending on the date of occurrence.4. The prosecution case is that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1323; 1977CriLJ992; (1977)2SCC634; [1977]3SCR132; 1977(9)LC339(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant, Palaniappa Gounder, was convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, under Section 302 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death on the charge that on August 23, 1974 he had committed the murder of one Sengoda Gounder. The appellant's son and daughter-in law were convicted by the learned Judge for abetting, the murder and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The three accused filed an appeal in the High Court of Madras which upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302 but reduced the sentence from death to imprisonment of life. However, while reducing the substantive sentence the High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000/-on the appellant and directed that out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- should be paid to the son and daughters of the deceased under Section 357(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 2 of 1974. The other two accused were acquitted by the High Court. We are not concerned in this appeal with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1328; 1977CriLJ997; (1977)2SCC630; [1977]3SCR139; 1977()WLN107
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The respondents were tried by the Sessions Judge, Merta (Rajasthan) for offences under Sections 302, 302/149 and some other minor sections of the I.P.C. Respondent Goparam was acquitted of all the charges. The other respondents also were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 302/149, I.P.C. Respondent Sangram was convicted under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. Respondent Dayairam was convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. Respondents Budharam and Ramdeen were convicted under Section 323, I.P.C.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, the State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal against acquittal of the major charges under Section 378 of the CrPC, 1973.3. The Sessions Judge delivered the judgment on March 30, 1974 and the CrPC, 1973, came into force from April 1, 1974. The appeal was, therefore, preferred under the new Code.4. It appears that the State of Rajasthan preferred a petition for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the CrPC, 1973, on Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1653; [1977]107ITR916(SC); (1977)2SCC735; [1977]3SCR125; 1977(9)LC407(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant owns a jute mill situate at Rajgunj, Railway Station Andul, District Howrah in the State of West Bengal and among other juit products, it manufactures jute carpet backing cloth at its jute mill. The appellant exported diverse quantities of jute carpet backing cloth manufactured by it to various countries during the period 13th July 1966 to 30th November, 1966. There was a Tax Credit Certificate Scheme framed by the Central Government under Section 280 ZE read with Section 280 ZC of the Income Tax Act 1962. The Scheme was called the Tax Credit Certificate (Exports) Scheme 1965. The Scheme provided for grant of Tax Credit Certificate in respect of certain categories of goods or merchandise specified in column 2 which were exported to destinations specified in column 4 and the dates of export of which fell after 28th February, 1965, for an amount calculated at the rates specified in column 3 of the Table attached to the scheme. Jute carpet backing cloth w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)2SCC724; [1977]39STC355(SC); 1977(9)LC219(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises a short question of law as to whether or not hume pipes which are the subject-matter of the present case amount to 'sanitary fittings' as contemplated by a notification issued by the Government under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The respondent is a dealer engaged in the manufacture and supply of hume pipes manufactured by the respondent arc reinforced with cement concrete pipes and the respondent also manufactures high quality & high pressure pipes like prestressed concrete pipes for water supply, R.C. Pressure pipes, penstock pipes used in hydro-electric projects etc. The respondent was a supplier of pipes to various Governmental Departments both Central and State, such as Irrigation, Public works, local Self Government Engineering, Railways and Ministry of Petroleum etc. It appears that a dispute arose between the respondent and the Sales Tax Department with respect to the rate ef tax for sale of pipes manufactured by the respon...
Tag this Judgment!