|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 52 Records
-
1970 (7) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... strict Munsif, Turaiyur, are set aside. Instead, there will be a decree declaring the appellant's title to the suit property marked as pqrs in the plaint plan (attached to the decree of the trial Court) and directing that the appellant do recover possession of the said property encroached upon by the respondent, with liberty to the respondent to remove the latrine on the said property within three months from this date and to restore the said property of the appellant to the condition in which it was, when it encroached upon the same. In default, the appellant will be at liberty to remove the latrine put by the respondent on his (appellant's) property through Court and recover the expenses of such removal from the respondent. There will be no mandatory injunction to the respondent in this case also and instead the respondent is given the liberty to remove the latrine within three months. In this appeal also, the appellant will have his costs through out. 46. No leave.
-
1970 (7) TMI 81 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... red that the figures of turnover adopted for the year 1959-60 was a safe guide for fixing the turnover for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62. We are unable to say that any real question of law arises here because it is well settled that the turnover of the preceding year can, in the absence of any departure from the normal, be accepted as the basis for determining of the turnover the immediately following years. It does not seem that there was any departure from the normal because the turnover of 1959-60 was also fixed at ₹ 2,80,000/- by the assistant Commissioner (Judicial) after taking into regard the restriction on the movement of food grains and the levy system introduced by the Government. In our opinion, the answer to the third question suggested by the applicant is self evident and no reference is called for. 6. This and the connected applications are dismissed with costs which we assess at ₹ 50/- in each case. Counsel's fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1970 (7) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... st the persons who at the date of the Indenture of Release dated 25th October 1962 answered the description of being the heirs of the defendant as on an intestacy. I answer the question propounded by the Originating Summons as follows; 1. In the affirmative. 2. In the affirmative. 3. In the affirmative. & 4. The trustees must sell the Trust property in the manner directed by the Indenture of Trust dated 19th January 1927 and hold the money arising from any such sale, after payment of all expenses attending such sale, upon trust to divide or distribute the same, together with the balance of the unapplied income thereof, amongst the persons who would be the heirs of the defendant as on an intestacy if he had died on the 25th of October of 1962. 5 6 7 8 Do not arise. 9 10 & 11. 7.I order that the plaintiffs' costs of this Originating Summons, as between attorney and client, as well as the costs of the defendant, do come out of the trust estate. 8. Order accordingly,
-
1970 (7) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... crisis arising out of such activities, the rights of individuals have to be postponed to the larger considerations of State. 6. In regard to the submission that the petitioner was arrested and deprived of his personal liberty long before the order of his arrest and this invalidated his detention, it is sufficient to point out that in habeas corpus proceedings the Court has to consider the legality of the detention on the date of hearing. If on the date of hearing it cannot be said that the aggrieved party has been wrong fully deprived of his personal liberty and his detention is contrary to law, a writ of habeas corpus cannot issue. 7. I am expressing no opinion in this case on the question of the effect of the withdrawal of the earlier petition by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner's detention cannot, therefore, be considered to be contrary to procedure established by law and cannot be held to be illegal so as to justify his release. This petition fails and is dismissed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egislature must be fixed with the knowledge of the construction placed on the Act by the courts. No such action was taken by the Legislature. This circumstance is, of course, not conclusive but it is not wholly irrelevant and certainly deserves to be noticed as carrying some presumptive weight. As the appellant was not carrying on the bussiness of money lending in Chanda District, the single transaction in dispute in that district was not covered by the Act and the suit could proceed in the normal way without a registration certificate. On the view we have taken the only question which remains to be noticed relates to the argument that there should be three mortgage decrees instead of one. This matter is one of procedure and form and it does not materially. affect the substantive rights of the parties. We are, therefore, disinclined on this ground to direct modification of the impugned decree. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed but without costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... made in favour of idols for the due performance of pooja, neivedyam etc. Even it there is a doubt from the recitals in Ex. A. 1, that the installation of idols was completed and that, therefore, the dedication of properties was made in favour of idols for the due performance of pooja, neivedyam etc. Even if there is a doubt from the recitals in Ex. A. 1, that the installation of the idols was not completed at the time of dedication, it is clear from the evidence of d. W. 1, Somasundara Sastrigal, the Archaka of Sri Kalyanasundares warar temple that the nalvar idols were installed even before 1953. ( 20. ) We shall now refer to the oral evidence of witnesses examined in the case. ( 21. ) The substance of the evidence of these witnesses would show that the idols of Nalvars were installed in the temple and daily poojas were being done to them and the public worship those idols and the place where the idols were installed is used by the public as of right for religious worship.
-
1970 (7) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he revision application. The fourth question is answered accordingly. GULATI, J.-Originally I had answered question No. (3) only leaving other questions unanswered because there was a difference of opinion between us on question No. (3) Question No. (3) has now been answered in favour of the assessee in accordance with the opinion of the learned third Judge. After going through the judgment of my brother Pathak, J., I have no hesitation in agreeing with the answers proposed by him to the other questions. BY THE COURT.-In view of the opinion expressed by us in our respective judgment and the opinion returned by the third Judge, the four questions referred in this case are answered as follows Question No. (1) Need not be answered. Question No. (2) In the negative. Question No. (3) In the affirmative. Question No. (4) In the affirmative. The assessee is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 100 Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (7) TMI 75 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ustification for imposing the tax on the assessee. Their Lordships repelled this contention and held The collective marketing activity or sale by the Board of the coffee which is under its control and custody of which it becomes the absolute owner under the provisions of the Act is undoubtedly the business of the Board of selling goods and, therefore, the transactions of the Board now under consideration are clearly transactions of the dealer within the meaning of the General Sales Tax Act. Referring to the contention advanced on behalf of the Board, as has been done by the petitioner in this case, that the Board makes over the profits to the producer, their Lordships held The Board, when it sells the coffee of the pool, does undoubtedly aim to make a profit though not for itself. 8.. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in the affirmative. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. G.K. MISRA, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1970 (7) TMI 74 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se. The decision in Muniswamappa v. State of Mysore 1968 22 S.T.C. 536. relied on by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal does not lay down that where an appellate authority arbitrarily directs the assessee to furnish bank guarantee the Tribunal or the High Court ought not to interfere. It is seen from the report of the case that the Advocate for the assessee had consented before the Deputy Commissioner to the production of a bank guarantee. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner, in our opinion, has acted arbitrarily in the exercise of his discretion and therefore his orders call for interference in revision. For the above reasons, these revision petitions are allowed, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as modified by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are set aside and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to disposed of the applications of the assessee in the light of this order. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100, one set. Petitions allowed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to further prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of the assessee. There is in this case ground for thinking that the representation, though erroneous, might not have been dishonest because, in the registration certificate, all other columns except the one in which such goods were intended to be specified, had been scored out. What is more, there was nothing to prevent him from so specifying the goods and it is not unlikely that the assessee believed honestly, though erroneously, that he had already so done. Therefore, he explained By an oversight the details could not be mentioned, though understood as such by the applicant and the department. We are of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of the penalty was not legal and, in that sense, not justified. We answer the question referred to us accordingly. 5.. In all the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (7) TMI 72 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed, the said expression in the context in which it appears, can only refer to the final order of determination of the tax payable and not to the entire procedure for making an assessment. In the instant case the final order of assessment having been made beyond the period of four years even after excluding the period between the date of the original assessment and the date on which it was set aside, the order of fresh assessment made on the petitioner is clearly barred by time and is devoid of jurisdiction. Even the notice issued on 22nd June, 1969, proposing to make a fresh assessment is beyond the period of four years and consequently the said notice as well as the further order of assessment made in pursuance thereof are clearly without jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, in P.O.R. 6/65-66 dated 16th August, 1969, are quashed and the writ petition is allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in his order under section 10(3), the consumption of electricity varies with the size and the type of the expellers, their age and many other factors like voltage etc. It has also been observed by the Judge (Revisions) that the consumption of electricity is more in the case of barrey oil and linseed oil than in the case of mustard oil. In the case of the assessee the total production consists of 10 to 12 per cent. of the mustard oil and the balance was that of linseed and barrey oils. In these circumstances the consumption of electricity alone could not be held to be a material justifying the rejection of the accounts particularly when the assessee s accounts had once been accepted during the regular assessment proceedings. We accordingly answer the second part of the question in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. As the assessee and the department both have succeeded in part, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (7) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he collected tax then, in spite of the fact that the Act was retrospective from the year 1958 would not be hit by article 14 or 19 of the Constitution. Except for the above-said finding of the Honourable Pathak, J., I agree with the other parts of his judgment. The result of my finding would therefore be that the exemption from liability to pay past tax due up to 9th June, 1969, would be available to all those dealers who have not collected any tax in respect of such sale or any portion of the turnover relating to such sale. This writ petition is therefore allowed and impugned orders quashed with this direction that the assessing authority will reassess and, in case the petitioner has not collected any tax for the period in dispute, he will not be liable to pay the tax in respect of the transactions in dispute. Under the circumstances of the case, costs will be on parties. By the Court In view of the majority opinion, the petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 69 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e transferee-dealer as contemplated by section 33 of the Act. We also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the assessment contemplated by section 33 is qua business and not qua the owner thereof. It is of course true that assessment of sales tax is made on the turnover of the business but the owner of the business who is liable to pay the tax is always interested in the quantification of the tax resulting from assessment and that being so, it is difficult to comprehend how the owner of such a business would be unconcerned with the said assessment. We, therefore, declare that the impugned recovery notices and the consequential action taken by the department are illegal. We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus quashing the impugned notice of recovery as well as the attachment and other consequential actions taken by the department pursuant to the said notices. Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs. Rule made absolute.
-
1970 (7) TMI 68 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt. We relied on the decision in State of Kerala v. Appukutty 1963 14 S.T.C. 242 (S.C.). In Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Company 1969 24 S.T.C. 491 (S.C.)., the Supreme Court has held that where a particular income was before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the same was exempted, the provision for assessing escaped income cannot be invoked for bringing such income to tax. The said decision has been applied to a sales tax case in State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan 1969 24 S.T.C. Short Notes 2 since reported at 1970 26 S.T.C. 251 (S.C.). decided by the Supreme Court. The above decisions of the Supreme Court fully support our view expressed in S.T.R.P. Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of 1968(1). Therefore under section 12-A the respondent has no jurisdiction to assess the turnover exempted earlier. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned notice dated 22nd March, 1969, is quashed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 67 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the period 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1969. On 22nd September, 1969, the second respondent issued a notice, marked annexure I , purporting to be a notice under rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957, demanding payment of tax at 3 per cent. on the aforesaid turnover of Rs. 56,875.27 holding that coriander is not entitled to exemption. Rule 38 of the Rules could have no application to the facts of the case when no assessment order was made, and the question of rectification of an order does not arise. Therefore, the impugned notice is clearly without jurisdiction. Consequently, it is hereby quashed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 66 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... issued under section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with rule 37 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the turnover in dispute cannot be regarded as an escaped turnover for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with rule 37 of the Rules. We have held in Writ Petition No. 6003 of 1969(1) today that where (1) Since reported as Karnataka Trading Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Bangalore 1971 28 S.T.C. 144. a particular turnover was already before the assessing authority and that turnover was exempted, the power under section 12-A of the Act cannot be invoked for the purpose of bringing the said turnover to assessment on the ground that it is an escaped turnover. In our opinion, the impugned notice dated 7th March, 1970, issued by the second respondent is without jurisdiction and consequently it is quashed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns. But they failed. We are unable to see any error. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the findings in the compounding proceedings might prejudice it in the assessment proceedings. We do not think that this will be necessarily so. The facts found in the compounding proceedings may not by themselves be material in the assessment proceedings. The assessing authority will have to rest the assessment in the light of the materials themselves which he will have to judge with a fresh mind. On that view, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 64 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the order of the assessing authority is not legal or proper. The second respondent has not stated in his notice, exhibit I, that on an examination of the assessment records, he is satisfied that the order of the assessing authority is not legal or proper. It is not open to the second respondent to rely on the opinion of the Head of the Division of Genetics, I.A.R.I., New Delhi, for the purpose of deciding the legality or propriety of the orders of assessment. Therefore the second respondent, in our opinion, has acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction and consequently the notices issued by him have to be quashed. In that view, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on the second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices issued by the second respondent marked annexure I are quashed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1970 (7) TMI 63 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... powers to revise the orders made by the Commercial Tax Officers. He can revise only the orders made by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officers. In the instant case, the assessment orders were made by the Commercial Tax Officer whose orders are not open to revision by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Rule 38 which is also relied on in the notice is wholly inapplicable to the circumstances set out in the notice. In order to invoke the powers under section 38 it must appear that the order sought to be rectified suffers from a mistake apparent on the record. Exhibit 1 does not state that the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer suffers from a mistake apparent from the record. On the contrary, the respondent relies on the expert opinion obtained subsequent to the date of the assessment order which is extraneous to the record. For the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices marked exhibit 1 are quashed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
|
