Uttaranchal Court September 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.
Jayanti Prasad Nautiyal Vs. Kamla Nand Bahuguna and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr26
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. By the impugned order dated 25-7-2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun, the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the order dated 23-4-2008 passed by the Trial Judge was allowed. Vide the order dated 23-4-2008, the learned Trial Court had allowed the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the petitioner's counter-claim in the written statement. The learned District Judge while setting aside the aforesaid order rejected the said application.2. Some relevant and important dates and events may be noticed. The suit was filed on 12-11-2002. The original written statement was filed on 29-11-2003. The issues were framed on 13-8-2007 and the evidence of the plaintiff by way of affidavits was filed on 30-8-2007. The application for amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C. to incorporate the counter claim was filed on 5-3-2008.3. First and foremost, the question which arises for conside...
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. Jalpac India Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: (2009)25VST168(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Both these revisions have arisen out of the same order and involve the same question of law and are, therefore, taken together for disposal. The above two revisions, filed under Section 11(1) of the Uttaranchal (U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948) Adoption and Modification Order, 2002 read with Section 80 of the Uttaranchal VAT Act, 2005, are directed against the order dated September 8, 2006 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Appeal No. 37 of 2006 and Appeal No. 38 of 2006, whereby the appeals of the respondent/assessee are allowed setting aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) affirming the order of the assessing officer dated March 11, 2003 passed under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act.2. The question of law involved in the revision is as under:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in knocking off the interest imposed by the assessing officer, ignoring the provision contained in Section 9 of th...
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Poltawaski T.P.S. Power Services
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST410(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision, preferred under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (applicable to the State of Uttarakhand), is directed against the order dated April 6, 2004, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Dehradun, whereby the Second Appeal No. 248 of 2002, filed by the assessee (present respondent) has been allowed, holding that no entry tax is payable on the purchase of diaphragm.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a firm registered with the Trade Tax Department, who deals with the purchase and sale of machineries and parts of the machineries. During the assessment year 1999-2000, the respondent-assessee supplied 10 diaphragms to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar, for manufacture of the steam turbines, which the dealer purchased for $ 2,05,000. In terms of rupees, as per the dealer, value of the goods was Rs. 90,05,650. As such, the price shown by the dealer was Rs. 9,00,565 per diaphra...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mcdermott International Inc.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN366(NULL)
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment and order passed in April 2006, in Income-tax Appeal No. 2420/Delhi/2003, by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'ITAT'), whereby upholding the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I ['hereinafter referred as CIT (A)-I'], the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.2. The question of law involved in this appeal is as under:Whether the ITAT has erred in law in holding that once it is found that notice under Section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction, the action under Section 147 taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/assessee McDermott International Inc. is a Non-Resident Company (NRC). The assessment in respect of the year 1989-90 was completed on the total income of Rs. 5,69,73,130 as agai...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Institute of Petroleum
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2008[12]STR113
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the order dated 11-7-2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as CESTAT), whereby the Appeal No. ST/134/04-NB(SM) filed by the assessee (present respondent) was allowed, and order of the revisional authority was set aside.2. The question of law involved in this appeal is as under:Whether, service tax is not leviable on the service in respect of which draft project report by the scientific and technical expert (service provider) is already prepared prior to the date on which the service was brought under the net of service tax3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee Indian Institute of Petroleum, Hardwar Road, Mohkampur, Dehradun (hereinafter referred as IIP) is a constituent laboratory of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)...
Rameshwar Havelia Vs. Asian Agro Farms India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2753
ORDERB.C. Kandpal, J.1. By way of this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the relief to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30-7-2007 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition), passed by City Magistrate, Dehradun under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 29-5-2008 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition), passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2007, Rameshwar Havelia v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.2. According to the petitioner he purchased the property bearing No. 183-1/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun vide registered sale deed dated 30-1-2003 from respondent No. 1 for Rs. 55 Lakhs. The entire payment was made through cheque, which was duly encashed by the respondent No. 1 and since then the petitioner is owner in possession of the said property. The name of the petitioner has also been mutated in the Municipal records and all the taxes pertai...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›