Uttaranchal Court November 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dish T.V. India Limited and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr31; (2009)26VST649(NULL)
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions, levy of entertainment tax under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, on Direct to Home (for short DTH) service provided by the petitioners is challenged, and the question of law involved is the same, hence, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the parties.3. Factual matrix of these cases is that the petitioners are granted licenses under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 5 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, on payment of license fee. Their case is that DTH service is different to that of one provided by the cable operators. It is pleaded by the petitioners that the DTH services are provided by them by using satellite system that transmits programmes and provides T.V. signals directly to subscriber's premises. Th...
Assotech Super Tech (J.V.) Through Its Signatory Authority Chandra Kis ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-24-2008
Reported in: (2010)27VST433(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.04.2007 and 16.03.2007 (copies annexure 10 and 11 to the writ petition), issued by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Rudrapur. A further mandamus has been sought directing the respondents not to levy or collect tax on civil construction works undertaken by the petitioner. A declaration has also been sought to the effect that civil works undertaken by the petitioner is not liable for payment of tax and that levy and collection of Sales Tax is in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution and provisions of the Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the parties.3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ peti...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Bhawani Shankar Was
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-18-2008
Reported in: [2009]311ITR8(Uttaranchal); [2010]186TAXMAN352(NULL)
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. In all these appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the facts and issues are the same although the appeals themselves pertain to different assessment years. For this reason, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order since the substantial questions of law involved in all these appeals are common.2. The leading appeal in the present bunch of appeal is bearing No. I.T.A. No. 125 of 2007 which is directed against the judgment and order dated February 23, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITAT') whereby the said authority has allowed the appeal of the assessee and has set aside the order of the Assessing Officer as well as that of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)').3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:For the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee,...
Harbans Motor Works and ors. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr46
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has Sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23-7-2005 (Copy annexure-1 to the writ petition], passed by (respondent No. 2). A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent Corporation to restore the possession of the retail outlet to the petitioner's.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, filed on their behalf.3. Brief facts as narrated in the writ petition are that petitioner No. 1-M/s. Harbans Motor Works tea, partnership firm with a dealership retail outlet of petrol and diesel of respondent corporation. Petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 are partners in said firm. A license/agreement was executed between the respondent, No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 in the year 1999, before the retirement of one, of the partners Ishwar Singh Chaddha (father of petitioner No. 2) in whose, place petitioner No....
Smt. Shashi Bakshi and anr. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi JaIn and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr25
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up today for hearing and final disposal.2. A very short question is involved for consideration in this case and the question is whether for computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal, the date of knowledge of the passing of the decree is relevant or the date of the decree is relevant. In other words, does the limitation start running, for filing an appeal against a decree in an appellate Court, from the date of the passing of the decree or the date when the appellant obtained the knowledge about the passing of the decree3. The learned District Judge, in the impugned judgment, has taken a view that the limitation starts running from the date of the knowledge. The decree, impugned in the appeal, was passed on 7th August, 2007 and the appeal against the same was filed before the learned District Judge on 19th March, 2008 accompanied by an application for condonation of dela...
Rajendra Nath Shah Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr28
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. For the reasons stated, the Application is allowed. The order dated 30th September, 2008 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original position.Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2001 (M/S):2. The issue involved for consideration in this case is indeed very, very simple even though it is slightly important. The facts in brief:3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration etc. in the Court of Civil Judge at Nainital against respondents Nos. 3 to 5. As per the averment contained in para 10 of the plaint, the valuation of the Suit was fixed at Rs. 50 lacs. Whilst the Suit was pending in the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the Plaint, which was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved, respondents Nos. 3 to 5/defendants filed revision petition against the said order, allowing the amendment of the Plaint, before the First Addl. District Judge, Nainital being Civil Revision No. 20 of 1999 who, vide the impugne...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›