Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(98)ELT583(SC); (1998)9SCC637
ORDER1. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals directed against the order of Customs, Excise & Gold. (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim for refund for the period which was beyond six months from the date the duty was paid. 2. Various items of porcelain manufactured by the appellant for use as components of insulating device were assessed to duty under Tariff Item 23-B-CET. In English Electric Co. of India Ltd. v. Supdt., Central Excise : 1979(4)ELT36(Mad) the Madras High Court held that such items were not dutiable under Item 23-B. It is not disputed that this decision has been upheld by this Court. The appellant, therefore, on 12-6-1978 and 16-6-1978 filed two applications for refund of duty paid by it before the Assistant Collector for the period 1-4-1977 to 31-3-1978 and 18-6-1975 to 31-3-1977 respectively. It was claimed that in view of the decision in English Electric Co. the insulators manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC980; 1995(1)Crimes138(SC); JT1994(7)SC712; 1996(7)KarLJ141; 1994(5)SCALE52; (1995)2SCC76; [1994]Supp6SCR171
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by Shivappa S/o Bundappa who was accused No. 2 in the trial court and appellant No. 2 in the High Court and is directed against the order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 21st September, 1990 upholding his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant along with Smt. Sudha (A1) and four others were tried for various offences in connection with the murder of Suresh Singhi on 4.12.1986 at about 3.00 a.m.2. According to the prosecution case Smt. Sudha (A1) was working as a Nurse in the primary health center at Ullagadi Khanapur. She was married to the deceased Suresh Singhi. The deceased used to live at Belgaum but used to visit his wife, A1, at Ullagadi Khanapur, where she was working, quite often. The appellant Shivappa was working as a Health Guide at the primary health center at Ullagaddi Khanapur. The husband of Sudha was addicted to drinking and there used to be frequent quarrels b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC643; 1994(5)SCALE32; (1995)1SCC456; [1994]Supp6SCR180
R.M. Sahai, J.1. What arises for consideration in these appeals directed against judgment and order of the High Court of Madras is whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Act No. 41 of 1992) (hereinafter called 'the Act') prohibiting grant of any permit overlapping whole or part of the notified route after 30th June, 1990 is invalid and ultra vires being violative of Article 14 for creating two classes among small operators by arbitrarily providing cut-off date and what is the ambit and scope of Section 10 and whether the decision of this Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru M.A Egappan : [1987]2SCR391 requires reconsideration.2. In the State of Tamil Nadu the State Government after addition of Chapter IV-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 framed various schemes in 1976 nationalising different routes. The effect of publication of the draft scheme was that the private stage carriage operators were excluded from operating on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC945a; 1995(3)ALT42(SC); (1995)111PLR706; 1994(5)SCALE286; [1994]Supp6SCR168; 1995(1)LC221(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant-Jasbir Singh had executed an agreement of sale dated 30.8.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4.1.1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir Singh, the first defendant. All the courts have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement dated 30.8.84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.2. It is contended for the petitioners that the trial court having found the petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the petitioners that Labha Singh plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention.3. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE44; 1995Supp(2)SCC72; [1994]Supp5SCR719; [1995]96STC642(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A common question arises in the Appeal and the special leave petitions. Leave granted in the Special leave petitions.2. The assesses is common in all the appeals. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the facts in the Civil Appeal 4734 of 1994 which pertains to the assessment year 1967-68 (1.4.1967) to 31.2.1968). The matter arises under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.3. The assesses is a manufacturer of biscuits. It is a registered dealer both under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The biscuits manufactured by the respondent are sold in tins. In respect of the biscuits sold outside the city of Bombay and its suburbs, the price charged by the respondent includes the cost of tins in which the biscuits are sold but insofar as the city of Bombay and its suburbs are concerned, - with which sales alone we are concerned herein - the respondent followed a different practice. While selling the biscuits in tins, it collected the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE136; (1995)1SCC532; [1994]Supp6SCR164
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 10062/93 dated April 18, 1994. The undisputed facts are that as per the procedure under Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class-I) Rules, 1976 to fill up nine vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch, nominations have been called from various departments. The Rules do not provide the procedure for nomination by the heads of departments, Chief Ministers, Ministers, Chief Justice of High Court etc. For the posts of Stenographer and the senior clerks working the Secretariat, the Chief Secretary is the hand of the department. Since there are more than the required number to be nominated, namely, while three persons out of the senior stenographers and two persons out of clerical cadre, more than 80 candidates have applied for. With a view to screen the candidates, the Chief Secretary had evolved, by administrative order the procedure, namely, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC573; 1994(4)SCALE1103; 1995Supp(1)SCC673; [1994]Supp6SCR91; [1995]96STC654(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals, directed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, is whether entry tax on goods such as sugar on which no sales tax is leviable, could be subjected to levy under Section 3(1 )(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mai Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Entry Tax Act').2. Even though legislative competence of the State Legislature was the principal attack on the validity of the levy in the High Court but the main thrust of challenge in this Court has been on the nature of levy, its ambit and whether it impedes free flow of trade and commerce in violation of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no dispute on facts and the appellants who are dealers registered under the Sales Tax Act of the State have brought goods such as sugar which are specified in Schedule II of the Act from outside the State for consumption, use or sale inside t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1995)ACC657; JT1994(7)SC718; 1994(4)SCALE1099; (1995)1SCC351; [1994]Supp6SCR98; [1995]96STC659(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. These appeals are directed against judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay. The appellants are either contractors or are dealers of motor vehicles who have purchased vehicles from outside the State and have brought them in the State of Maharashtra. They are aggrieved by levy of entry tax on such motor vehicles under Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Into Local Areas Act, 1987. They challenged it by way of writ petitions in the High Court. It was claimed that the levy was a colourable exercise of the legislative power of the State as Entry 52 of List II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India did not permit imposition of such tax. It was also urged that the legislation impeded freedom of the appellants under Article 301 of the Constitution. Another ground of challenge was that the imposition was double burden on the appellants and in absence of any rational nexus between the levy of tax and the constitutional objective it was violative of Articles...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR871]; JT1994(7)SC751; 1994(4)SCALE1121; 1995Supp(1)SCC349a; [1994]Supp6SCR104
N.P. Singh, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appeals on behalf of D.K. Jain, C.P. Taneja and other have been filed for setting aside the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1277 of 1988 filed on behalf of the said appellants, questioning the validity of the Order of the State Government, counting the period, while the respondents were in military service, during the proclamation of emergency, for the purpose of their seniority. The appellants have also challenged the judgment of the High Court allowing the Writ Petition No. 3184 of 1988, filed on behalf of the respondents, questioning the validity of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Public Health Branch), Haryana First Amendment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Amending Rules'). Rule 6 and Rule 9 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Public Health Branch), 1961 were amended retrospectively with effect from 2.6.1961 by the aforesaid Amending Rules. The High Court has held that inspite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(50)ECC138; JT1994(7)SC577; 1994(4)SCALE1138; 1995Supp(1)SCC707; [1994]Supp6SCR120; [1995]98STC32(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The validity of the levy of education cess and rural employment cess created by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989 is called in question in these writ petitions preferred by several the estates in West Bengal.Legislative Background:2. For a proper appreciation of the questions arising herein, it is necessary to have a glimpse of the legislative history behind the impugned Amendment Act. The West Bengal Legislature enacted. The West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1953 and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976 to provide for primary education throughout the State and to provide employment in rural areas respectively. For raising funds for the said purposes, the State Legislature imposed two cesses upon certain lands and buildings in the State. Since the relevant provisions of both the enactments are similar, it would be sufficient to notice the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!