Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC12; 1984(2)SCALE621; 1984Supp(1)SCC563; [1985]1SCR980; [1985]58STC12(SC)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1976 (Act 2 of 1976). By the said Act Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 was amended by substituting a new provision in the place of what existed before, section 3 was omitted and section 3A was newly introduced to Act. As the points raised in all these Writ Petitions are identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Before we proceed to set out the provisions of the impugned Act, it is necessary to narrate in brief the legislative history that preceded its enactment. The basic statute providing for the levy of Sales tax in the State of Tamil Nadu is the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959). In the year 1970, the State Legislature enacted the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act-Act 14 of 1970 (hereinafter called...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC109; [1985]152ITR111(SC); (1984)4SCC543; [1985]59STC49(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent was assessed to sales-tax under the Uttar Pradesh Sales-tax Act for the year 1977-78. The books of account were rejected and the disclosed taxable turnover of Rs. 51,451/- was enhanced on estimate to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the assessment order dated October 30, 1979. Assessee's appeal to the Assistant Commissioner succeeded in part and by order dated June 10, 1980 the Assistant Commissioner reduced the taxable turnover to Rs. 65,000/- while sustaining rejection of the books of account. Against the appellate decision of the Assistant Commissioner, the assessee and the Commissioner appealed to the Tribunal -- the assessee claiming acceptance of the accounts and the returned taxable turnover and the Commissioner challenging the reduction of the estimated taxable turnover from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-. Assessee's appeal being O. M. A. No. 1366 of 1980 was dismissed by order dated June 11, 1982, by the Tribunal and the decision of the Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1916; (1984)86BOMLR615; [1984(49)FLR391]; 1985LabIC396; (1985)ILLJ1SC; 1984(2)SCALE597; (1984)4SCC627; [1985]1SCR962; 1985(17)LC24(SC)
Venkataramiah, J.1. Shri Narakesari Prakashan Ltd. and Nav Samaj Ltd., Nagpur are the appellants in the above two appeals by special Leave filed under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appellants respectively are printers and publishers of newspapers known as 'Tarun Bharat' and 'Nagpur Times', Their case is that their employees working for wages in the administrative and editorial sections of their respective concerns were not 'employees' as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prior to November 19, 1976 on which date by a notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Act the Government of the State of Maharashtra made the Act applicable to the said employees also and that therefore they were not liable to make any contributions under the Act in respect of the said employees up to that date. They however admit their liability to make contributions during that period in respect of persons employed by them for wages...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC299; 1984CriLJ1731; 1985(1)Crimes313(SC); 1985MPLJ127(SC); 1984(2)SCALE578; (1984)4SCC487; [1985]1SCR949
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. On 17.8.1979 the Food Inspector, Sorar, purchased 375 grams of Soyabean oil from the shop of the petitioner, Tulsiram. The Soyabean oil purchased was divided into three parts; each part was filled in a bottle; each bottle was sealed; and, one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Raipur for analysis. The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated as it contained traces of cotton seed oil. On 29.11.1979 a complaint was filed on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Balod, On 17.12.1979 a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwared to the petitioner as required by Rule 9-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The accused-petitioner however made no application to the Trial Court to have one of the samples sent to the Central Food Laboratory for further analysis. He was content merely to deny offence. After due trial he was convicted by the Magistrate on 8.9.1982, u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC380; 1985(5)ECC167; 1985(19)ELT3(SC); 1984(2)SCALE639; 1984Supp(1)SCC548
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1315/771. The correctness of the decision of the High Court to the effect that the Operation Tables manufactured by the respondent-Company does not come within Item No. 40 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and in view thereof no excise duty can be imposed on the same, has been challenged in this appeal filed by the Union of India the Collector and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Poona.2. The respondent-Company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the levy of excise duty by the authorities concerned on the Operation Tables manufactured by the respondent Company and also X-ray Protective Screens manufactured by the respondent-Company. The authorities concerned had proceeded to hold that these items were 'steel furniture' within the meaning of Item No. 40 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, therefore, excise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC139; 1985MPLJ112(SC); 1984(2)SCALE641; (1984)4SCC447; [1985]1SCR945; 1985(17)LC42(SC)
ORDER1. These appeals by special leave are by the tenants whose eviction has been ordered by all the courts below under Section 12(1)(f) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the respondent landlord requires the premises bonafide for the purpose of having his gold and silver ornaments factory after demolishing the present building and putting up a new building at the place. The tenants were carrying on various kinds of business in the premises. Their defence was that the landlord has other alternative accommodation where he could locate his proposed factory and that his requirement is not bonafide. The courts below have found that the alternative accommodation alleged by the appellants to be available to the landlord is really a farm house which is used for the residential purpose, namely as accommodation for the farm servants of the landlord and it is situated about three miles away from the town and near a burial ground in a lonely place and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1888; (1985)1CompLJ190(SC); 1984(2)SCALE555; (1984)4SCC371; [1985]1SCR940; 1985(17)LC22(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing a writ petition in limine.2. Messrs. Depro Foods Limited entered into a contract with the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, whereby the said Corporation underwrote preference shares of Messrs. Depro Foods Limited of Rs. 100/- each for a total value of Rs. 3.6 lacs on which a dividend of 9.5% per annum was payable. The appellant who was apparently, at the relevant time, the Managing Director of Messrs. Depro Foods Limited, executed an agreement under which he guaranteed in his personal capacity the payment of the dividend income due in respect of the aforesaid shares to the said Corporation. It is not disputed that Messrs. Depro Foods Limited did not pay Rs. 1,96,961 representing the dividend payable to the said Corporation, and therefore the appellant became personally liable as Guarantor to pay that amount. It seems that o...
Tag this Judgment!