|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 234 Records
-
1982 (3) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and there was none present on behalf of the detaining authority. This submission also has no substance. 20. The last point raised by Mr. Jethmalani was that the cases of the four detenus connected with the same incident were reviewed by the Board; after having released one co-detenu, namely; Narasinghbhai Durlabhbhai, in pursuance of the Advisory Board's order, it was incumbent on the detaining authority to review the order of detention of the petitioners before us namely; Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel, (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8070 of 1981), Narsingh Vallabhbhai Tandel, (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23 of 1982) and Lallubhai Govanbhai Tandel (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 29 of 1982). As on a perusal of the report of the Advisory Board, it was found that Narsinh Vallabhbhai Tandel was advised to be released on the ground of tender age, learned counsel did not press the submission. 21. These petitions have no merits and are dismissed. P.B.R. Petitions dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a is far from convincing. In our opinion, in the facts of this case this delay, apart from being inordinate, is not explained on any convincing grounds. In Khudi Ram Das v. State of West Bengal,(l) this Court held that one of the basic requirements of clause (5) of Article 22 is that the authority making the order of detention must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention and this requirement would become illusory unless there is a corresponding obligation on the detaining authority to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible. Thus, in the facts of this case we are not satisfied that the representation was dealt with as early as possible or as expeditiously as possible, and, therefore, there would be contravention of section 13 of the Act which would result in the invalidation of the order. These are the reasons which had prompted us to quash and set aside the detention order. Petition allowed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... must be a public performance and there must be an entertainer and the entertained and the persons entertained should not be a part of the entertainment provided. A person who is required to pay for the use of the Video Machine is himself the entertainer and the entertained as in the case of a person playing on the Piano or the Sitar. The pleasure or amusement which such a person derives is entertainment. The Legislature could not possibly contemplate or visualise every type of entertainment that may come into existence with the development of scientific knowledge and technology and it was for that purpose that the inclusive clause was introduced in the definition of various words and expressions used in the Act. 14. In our opinion, entertainment tax for admission to Video Games falls within the ambit of the Act. The impugned notification specifying the rate of entertainment tax for Video Games is perfectly valid. In the result the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge." 17. It is thus clear that it is mandatory for the Sessions Judge while exercising his powers of revision not to make any order which would prejudice the accused or other person unless he had been given an opportunity of being heard. 18. The words "or other person" have been added in the amended provision of Section 401(2) in the 1973 Criminal P.C. In Section 439(2) of the Criminal P.C. 1898, the words "or other person" do not find mention. In the present case, therefore while admitting the revision petition to a regular hearing, it was required under the law to issue a notice to the petitioner herein by the Additional Sessions Judge. 19. However, the power of revision of the High Court and Sessions Judge being concurrent and as sub-section (3) of Section 399 of the Code is not applicable to the present case, it was not considered necessary by me to remand the matter. 20. Petition allowed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 259 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ef Conservator of Forest communicating its decision says "Government have accepted this proposal that all the forest lots should be got worked through Forest Corporation and the entire auction of all the lots of Major Forest Produce of this Division be cancelled." It is clear that the auction was cancelled because the Government decided to allot the entire forest lots to the Forest Corporation. As already observed by us this decision to allot the forest lots to the Forest Corporation was in confirmity with legislative policy and the earlier decisions taken by the Government to implement the legislative policy. It was no more than a reversion to a policy decision already taken. It was a good and sufficient reason for setting aside the auction. We are unable to hold that the decision of the Government was bad for failure to state reasons. In the circumstances we allow both the appeals with costs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition.
-
1982 (3) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al benefits thereafter, the imbalance introduced thereby in the services of the Bank and the consequent dissatisfaction had to be rectified. That could only be done by not recognising the accelerated promotions obtained in the intervening period by a certain class of officers. Shri Nariman has drawn our attention to various individual cases of officers in Group I whose old seniority has gone down by several steps in the new Scheme. As we have stated earlier, any scheme of seniority is bound to produce isolated aberrations. That cannot justify the argument that the entire Scheme is for that reason violative of the guarantee of equality. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned Administration Circular, the Office Order and the Combined Seniority List are not violative of the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. For these reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. S.R. Petitions dismissed. 444
-
1982 (3) TMI 257 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... epartment subsequently demanded differential duty on the ground that they had been selling the goods at a price lower than the approved prices and paying duty on the same on the basis of such prices during the period from October 72 to February 73. Appeal against this demand was rejected. 3. In the revision application the petitioners have contended that since they had applied for the relaxation in 1970 the permission given by the Collector relaxing the need of filing price list should be given retrospective effect. 4. Government observe that since the petitioners had applied for the relaxation prior to the period to which the demand relates and since there is no allegation that their sales were otherwise than at arm’s length the permission given in this regard at a subsequent date could be treated as effecting during the period of demand in question also. The Government accordingly accept the contentions of the petitioners and allow the revision application.
-
1982 (3) TMI 256 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... the Chief Chemist had opined that the same is stoneware rasching rings with water absorbancy of 0.36% and that the product is not classifiable under tariff item 23B of the Central Excise Tariff because it does not possess uniform texture and contains black spots in the body of ceramics even though the water absorbancy is less than 0.5%. 6. In support of their submissions, the party had also submitted test reports of National Test House, Calcutta, from the Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute, Jadavpur apart from the technical opinion of the Director General of Technical Development, New Delhi to show that the articles in question manufactured by them is stoneware. 7. Government have in order in review No. 1350 of 1978 considered the same issue of the party and upheld the order of tbe Appellate Collector. In view of this, Government of India find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Collector and drop the review proceedings.
-
1982 (3) TMI 255 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... monitors establish the contention of the appellants that at the initial stages they were merely concentrating on video cassette recorders and not on monitors. That way the absence of importations of some of the components mentioned in the import licence has been satisfactorily explained. As the goods have been cleared under the Customs Act and the orders of clearance have not been set aside on the basis of review proceedings it was also not correct for the Collector to draw up separate proceedings ignoring those orders of assessment and clearance. Even on merits no case has been made out to show that the importations were such as were not covered by the import. The orders of confiscation u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act are also wrong as the charge of under valuation has not been upheld by the Collector. The Board is therefore unable to uphold the orders of the Collector confiscating the good. The Board accordingly sets aside the Collector’s orders and allows the appeal.
-
1982 (3) TMI 254 - CENTRAL BOARD OE EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ty paid character of the glass rods. The Collector had decided this point on mere presumption. The benefit of doubt, in the absence of evidence to the contrary should therefore go in favour of the appellants. The benefit under Notification No. 71/78 (as amended) would be applicable for the subsequent period in view of the aggregate value of clearance of glass chatons during the financial years in issue. 20. The Board having considered the points in submission and having reached the conclusion that at no point of time of manufacture the goods produced by the appellants were dutiable, sets aside the demand for duty made in the impugned order. 21. The Board also accordingly sets aside the order of confiscation, and revokes the penalty imposed on the appellants. (The dutiability of the appellants’ chatons would be regulated by the provisions of Notification No. 80/80 till the aggregate value of clearances in a financial year is within the limitation as provided).
-
1982 (3) TMI 253 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ct a patent or proprietary medicine. Since the department has not denied or contradicted the appellants claim that the product is in accordance with the standard pharmacopoeia and is sold under a pharmacopoeial description, I hold that mere indicating a manufacturers name does not render it classifiable under Tariff Item 14(E). Non-pharmaceutical drugs/medicines correctly fall under Notification 55/75. 4. In view of the above finding it is not necessary to go into other submissions of the appellant. 5. The appeals are therefore admitted and orders of the Assistant Collector are set aside.
-
1982 (3) TMI 252 - SUPREME COURT
Whether prosecution of the offender was possible and sufficient in the circumstances of the case?
Held that:- In the present case the detenu tried to export Indian Currency to the tune of ₹ 2,88,900/- to a foreign country in a planned and pre-meditate manner by clever concealment of it in several parts of his baggage. This fully justified the detaining authority in coming to the conclusion that he might repeat his illegal act in future also and that his detention was necessary to preventing him from repeating the same in future. His past act in the circumstances might be an index of his future conduct.
When the legislature has made only the subjective satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention; it is not for the court to question whether the grounds given in the order are sufficient or not for the subjective satisfaction of the authority. Appeal dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 251 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In fact having regard to the default committed by the petitioner, the registering authority was competent to demand security deposit of an amount not exceeding one-half of the tax payable on the turnover of the dealer for the year. In the instant case, we cannot say that the registering authority has exercised the discretion in exercise of the undoubted jurisdiction vested in it under sub-rule (7) of rule 29 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules arbitrarily when it has merely directed the petitioner to pay security deposit of Rs. 18,000 which is the average amount of tax paid by him per month in the previous years. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time till 31st of March, 1982 to make the security deposit of Rs. 18,000 required of him and until then, the registration certificate already granted shall not be cancelled. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 250 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f India, as the matter admits of being disposed of on a short question. Section 8A(3-A) is attracted to and retrospectively cancels a notification issued under section 8A(1)(a) of the Act. It is conceded by the respondents that the earlier notification dated 10th September, 1970, exempting the purchase turnover of old gold and silver articles in the hands of manufacturers subject to certain conditions is not a notification under section 8A(1)(a) and that accordingly is not cancelled by virtue of section 8A(3-A). The submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents is placed on record. 3.. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part and the notice dated 18th January, 1982, issued under section 25A of the Act initiating proceedings for rectification is quashed. However parties are left to bear their own costs. Smt. Vanaja, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file her memo of appearance within three weeks from today.
-
1982 (3) TMI 249 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... should also be permitted to produce the declarations and claim reduced rate of tax in respect of the turnover which was shown as labour charges but which was held to be turnover of sales by the Deputy Commissioner. No benefit of concessional rate was claimed by the petitioner in respect of these transactions in the assessment proceedings or before the Deputy Commissioner. We, therefore, are unable to accept the petitioner s contention at this last stage. 6.. It was lastly contended that the amount of penalty under section 17(3) should be reconsidered by the Deputy Commissioner in view of the benefit of the reduced rate of tax to which the petitioner is entitled. In our opinion, this contention is also correct. 7.. The petition is partly allowed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is quashed and he is directed to re-decide the revision in the light of the observations made by this Court. There will be no order as to costs. Security amount will be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1982 (3) TMI 248 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Now the expression falsely represents clearly shows that the element of mens rea is a necessary component of the offence. If the registered dealer honestly believed that any particular goods are embraced by the certificate of registration and under this belief makes a representation, he cannot be held guilty of the offence under section 10(b) and no penalty can be imposed under section 10A. The question whether the assessee acted under an honest belief, is a question of fact. As the Tribunal has found that the assessee honestly believed that air coolers were covered by the registration certificate, in our opinion, it was right in cancelling the penalty. 5.. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question as follows The Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty on the finding that the assessee honestly believed that air coolers were covered by the expression electric motors, refrigerators and allied machines. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1982 (3) TMI 247 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not as to the person who buys the goods is in the State or not. The test is whether the goods are bought within the State or not. In this case, we have already come to the conclusion that even before the movement of the goods by rail, there has been a completed sale by the assessee in favour of the Canteen Stores Department (India), Bombay. At the time the goods were despatched by the assessee for and on behalf of the Canteen Stores Department (India), Madras, the goods moved is the property of the purchaser. In the circumstances, we set aside the orders of the Tribunal and hold that the sales in question are not inter-State sales within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In view of our conclusion on point No. 1, it is unnecessary to consider the other question raised by the learned counsel for the assessee on the basis of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the result, the tax revision cases are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 246 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the purpose of the first provision to section 3(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Section 27 overrides all other provisions of the Act including section 3, which is the charging section. Therefore neither the first proviso to section 3 nor the definition of sale in section 2(h) nor of turnover in section 2(i) can be applied to include sales made outside Uttar Pradesh. In the Allahabad case, section 27 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (which is in Pari materia the same as section 29 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act) was interpreted and it was observed that section 27 overrides all the provisions of the Act including section 3, which is a charging section. The definitions of sale , turnover and the charging provision of the Act are substantially the same as in the U.P. Sales Tax Act. 5.. In this view of the matter, this petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders are quashed to the extent that the sales made outside the State could not be assessed to tax. No costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 245 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the sum on which sales tax was computed. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of A.P. 1969 24 STC 487 (SC), the Bench held that the amount of freight was not includible in the total turnover of the assessee as the freight did not form part of the price payable for the sale. The facts in this case are similar to the facts in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of A.P. 1969 24 STC 487 (SC). We therefore hold that the order of the Board of Revenue holding that the sum of Rs. 98,816.18 incurred by the assessee towards freight and loading charges was not permissible deduction, has to be set aside. The assessee will be entitled to deduct the said amount from the total taxable turnover. We accordingly set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and restore that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The result is, the tax case is allowed. The assessee would be entitled to their costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1982 (3) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... title, will not make it any the less a sale in the course of export. The position is quite obvious. It would be the same even in a case where, after the goods leave the shores of India, an actual sale of the goods takes place on board the ship. For, by that time, the export, by definition, has already begun, and there can be no looking back. This last contention urged on behalf of the assessee on the basis of the second limb of section 5(1) of the Act was not dealt with by the Tribunal, although the point was taken before them. We have thought fit to deal with it ourselves instead of sending the case back, since it is purely a legal contention. To reiterate our conclusion on this part of the case, the assessee cannot bring the transactions under the second limb of section 5(1) of the Act any more than it could bring them under the first limb of that provision. The result is that the assessee s revision petition is dismissed. It is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
........
|
