|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 84 Records
-
1970 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Principal Act was void. In view of my finding that such an Act could be rendered operative in one of the three ways mentioned above and since that had not been done and the Act was merely amended in 1968 by the insertion of an additional section, namely, section IOE, the amendment was ineffective and the Act remained void. Any action taken against the petitioner under a void act was consequently invalid and must, therefore be struck down in the result, I would allow the petition and quash all the proceedings taken against the petitioners for their eviction and/or recovery of rent and/or damages; but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.. ( 173. ) In view of the decision of the majority, all the four writ petitions (C.Ws-431/1970, 322/1970,439/1969 and 967 of 1967) are allowed and the proceedings taken against the petitioners for their eviction and/or recovery of rent and/or damages are quashed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1970 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nferred on the President by Clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution. This ground of challenge had, of course, not been raised in either of the two courts below but since it went to the root of the case, being a jurisdictional point we considered it just and proper to allow it to be raised. We accordingly adjourned the hearing on July 21, 1970 to enable the counsel for the State to obtain instructions on this point and to inquire whether the Home Ministry had sanctioned the appellant's prosecution. On August 5, 1970, the next date of hearing, Shri Sachthey stated at the Bar that the Home Ministry had not sanctioned the appellant's prosecution and it was conceded before us that in the absence of such sanction the prosecution must fail. In view of what has just been stated the appeal cannot but succeed and allowing the same we set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bond is to be deemed to be cancelled.
-
1970 (9) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... moto power as well as against the grounds on which it wanted to exercise its power. Quite clearly the Central Government had not given him that opportunity. The High Court thought that as the Central Government had not only intimated to the appellant the grounds mentioned in the application made by the 5th respondent but also the comments of the State Government, the appellant had adequate opportunity to put forward his case. This conclusion in our judgment is untenable. At no stage, the appellant was informed that the Central Government proposed to exercise its suo moto power and asked him to show cause against the exercise of such a power. Failure of the Central Government to do so, in our opinion, vitiates the impugned order. For the reasons mentioned above we allow this appeal as well as the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. Central 'Government shall pay the costs of the appellant in this Court as well as in the High Court. Appeal and petition allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Judicial Committee in Mst. Ranee Surno Moyee v. Shooshee Mokhee Burmonla and Ors.( 12 Moore's I. A. 244.), which decision has been followed in the later decisions of the Judicial Committee as well as in several decisions of High Courts, I am of the opinion that it is not in public interest to disturb a question of law which has held the field for a long time. The decision of the Judicial Committee referred to earlier held that a claim which is satisfied, an expression held to include even getting of a decree on a claim, if reopened because of the decree of the appellate court or otherwise, a new cause of action accrues to the plaintiff on the date the earlier satisfaction is taken away. Applying that rule to the facts of the present case a new cause of action must be deemed to have accrued to the appellant in respect of the mesne profits under dispute once the decree of the trial court was set aside by the High Court. For this reason I agree with the order proposed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urpose that this Court was at pains to point out in Ranjit D. Udeshi's case ( 1965 1 S.C.R 65) certain considerations for the guidance of censorship of books. We think that those guides work as well here. Although we are, not inclined to hold that the directions are defective in so far as they go, we are, of opinion that directions to emphasize the importance of art to a value judgment by the censors need to be included. Whether this is done by Parliament or by the Central Government it hardly matters. The whole of the law and the regulations under it will have always to be considered and if the further tests laid down here are followed, the system of censorship with the procedural safeguards accepted by the Solicitor General will make censorship accord with our fundamental law. We allow this petition as its purpose is more than served by the assurance of the Solicitor General and what we have said, but in the circumstances we make no order about costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e are not concerned with the procedural difficulties which may be experienced; we have to declare what the law is and as appears to be well settled. the assessment of valuation for the purpose of tax must be made in accordance with and in the light of the provisions of the Rent Act which would be in force during the period of assessment. In the result the decrees which 'have been granted are hereby modified by declaring that the general revision made by the Guntur Municipality by increasing the rental valuation of houses and buildings beyond the fair rent determinable under the Rent Act in force for the period of assessment shall be illegal and ultra vires and a permanent injunction. shall issue restraining the municipality from realizing any amount in excess of such tax which may be found due on the valuation fixed according to the principles laid down in our judgment. In view of the entire circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court. V.P.S.
-
1970 (9) TMI 102 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Certificate Officer means, apart from a Collector or Sub-divisional Officer, any officer appointed to perform the functions of a Certificate Officer under the Act and there is no challenge that the signatories of the certificate and notice were not so appointed. Mr. Pal also contended that the appeal has not been properly filed as the authority of the person as representing the State of West Bengal has not been properly described in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. Under article 300(1) of the Constitution, the Government of a State is to sue or to be sued in the name of the State. In this appeal, the appellant has been described in the memorandum of appeal as the State of West Bengal and the other words therein are unnecessary surplus age and may be ignored. In view of the position created by the amending Act of 1961, the appeal must be and is allowed without any order as to costs in this court and the respondent s suit is dismissed, as proposed. Appeal allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 101 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... That, in our opinion, is not the criterion for interpreting the term sanitary fittings as it occurs in the notification referred to above. The expression sanitary fittings must be confined, in our opinion, to such articles as are commonly understood as belonging to that category in common parlance and in the commercial sense. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the pipes of the type, which the petitioner manufactures and supplies, are not covered by the entry relating to sanitary fittings in the notification in question and are not liable to tax at the rate of 7 per cent. The pipes are unclassified goods and are taxable at the general rate specified under section 3. We accordingly allow this petition and quash the impugned assessment orders relating to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1965-66, both dated 22nd January, 1970, so far as they seek to levy tax on the turnover of pipes at the rate of 7 per cent. The petitioner is entitled to its costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 100 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a canteen for supplying refreshments to the employees of a limited liability company without a profit-motive. The Supreme Court held that the society was liable to sales tax on the supplies so made. In that case the Supreme Court, however, found that there was nothing on the record to show that the society was acting merely as an agent of its members in providing facilities for making food available to the members and that the refreshments supplied to the employees of the limited company were the assessee s own goods. In the instant case, we have clearly indicated that the society was acting as an agent of its members for providing the facility of manufacturing and distributing bricks. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 100. The counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1970 (9) TMI 99 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the answer to the question whether an inference that there has been a pattern of continuous suppression for any period must depend on the existence of material (and/ or circumstances) which affords a reasonable nexus to the inference. This means that there must be material to indicate suppression and material to indicate that there was a pattern of suppression. 8.. In this case we feel that a pattern has been established there has been continuous suppression for a period of five days the amount of suppression was considerable there have been suppressions at both places of business and a number of unexplained slips indicating large scale suppressions were also recovered. We are unable therefore to come to the conclusion that there was no material before the assessing authorities for drawing the inference that they did, and we are unable to say that the conclusion is not an honest conclusion on the facts of the case. We dismiss this tax revision case. Petition dismissed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he department that everything that is made of iron or other base metals should be regarded as items of hardware was rejected. In fact item No. 8 in the notification in question does militate against that argument because that item enumerates machinery and spare parts of machinery. Obviously machinery and spare parts of machinery would be made of iron and other base metals and since there is a separate entry made in respect of machinery and hardware, it suggests very clearly that they were not considered to be governed by entry No. 7. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that tin trays and tin calendars in question cannot be considered to be items of hardware and as such are not taxable under the notification of 5th April, 1961, but would be taxable as unclassified items at the rate of 2 per cent. under section 3 of the Act. We answer the two questions accordingly. The assessee is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 100, one set only. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (9) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gh the original parts are still identifiable and have not lost their basic or essential properties. The process of assembly is as much a part of the manufacturing process as the production of the components. It may be the end process, but nevertheless essential to the completion of the commercial commodity. In our opinion, assembled cycles are liable to be treated as manufactured cycles and are, therefore, taxable at 3 per cent. The third question is answered accordingly. The fourth question is whether the estimate of the sales was justified when the purchases effected on Form C were ignored. We have carefully perused the order of the Additional Revising Authority disposing of the revision application and we do not see how this question arises out of that order. Accordingly we return no answer to the fourth question. The Commissioner of Sales Tax is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (9) TMI 96 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... S.C. 1207. was cited before their Lordships who, after narrating the facts of that case, observed On the basis of those facts, the court came to the conclusion that there was no room for mutual assent in those transactions. The facts of the present case are materially different from the facts of that case. Hence the ratio of that decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. Whether in a given case there was mutual assent or not is a matter to be decided on the facts of that case. Thus following the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. 1968 21 S.T.C. 138 (S.C.) A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 478., we hold that the transactions with which we are concerned herein, are sales. For the reasons recorded above, we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single judge and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 95 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll within explanation I contained in the definition of sale in section 2(n) nor can the club be regarded as a dealer within section 2(g) read with explanation I of the Madras Act. In the case of a students hostel, where the students themselves manage the hostel and the expenses incurred are shared by the students, it cannot be said that there is any sale of goods by the hostel to the students. Furnishing of food by the hostel to its members does not involve any transfer of property. Therefore, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had no jurisdiction to make the assessments on the hostels of the petitioners. For the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the second respondent in A.P. No. 99/67-68 dated 25th January, 1968, and A.P. No. 90/67-68 dated 27th January, 1968, are hereby quashed. We further issue a direction to the third respondent to forbear from making assessments on the petitioners for the assessment year 1961-62. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of mandatory nature. In my referring order in Sales Tax Reference No. 387 of 1964, I had expressed the opinion that rule 20-B is of a directory nature. A Full Bench of this court in Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P. v. M/s. Behari Lal Ram Krishna and Others 1971 27 S.T.C. 182 (F.B.). (S.T.R. No. 387 of 1964 decided on 13th May, 1970) has held the rule to be of mandatory nature. Although the opinion expressed by me has not been referred to in the Full Bench case, yet it is binding. I, therefore, agree that question No. (2) should be answered in the negative. In the end, I agree with the answers proposed to the two questions by brother Pathak, J. By the Court For the reasons contained in our respective judgments, the two questions are disposed of as follows Question No. (1)-Does not arise. Question No. (2)-In the negative. The Commissioner of Sales Tax is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Counsel s fee is assessed in the same figure. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (9) TMI 93 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it of the assessee was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. There was an unexplained cash credit of Rs. 6,531 in the assessee s books of account which was sought to be added by the department separately. The assessee claimed that the addition of Rs. 6,531 was not justified in view of the larger addition of Rs. 18,000 already made on estimate basis. This contention was accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner sought a reference on the following question of law Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the cash deposit of Rs. 6,531 can be said to come out and covered by the addition of Rs. 18,000 to the business profits of the assessee? This court by a majority answered the question in the affirmative. We accordingly answer question No. (2) in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. The counsel s fee is assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (9) TMI 92 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se and which leave us with no doubt that the present transaction in the instant reference is a sale and liable to tax. For the reasons stated above and the authorities discussed, we hold and we are of the opinion that the Board of Revenue was not in error of law in construing the agreement of 7th April, 1948, between the assessee and the Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. In other words, we hold that the agreement dated 7th April, 1948, represented a transaction by which the Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. sold the coal to the assessee and as such, the turnover was taxable under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. We further hold and are of the opinion that this agreement dated 7th April, 1948, invested the assessee with the status and/or incidence of a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act and the Board of Revenue was correct in so holding. We answer the question accordingly and the answer is in favour of the revenue. No order as to costs. BASU, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (9) TMI 91 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere remains to be considered only one ground, namely, the one based on article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not think the petitioners are strong on this ground. It cannot be said that the classification of oilmillers into one separate group is not founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes them from other groups of businessmen. As the petitioners have succeeded on the first two grounds the writ petition is to be allowed and the impugned rule is to be struck down as contravening article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also on the ground that it is not within the rule-making power of the Government conferred under section 39 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the impugned rule 45-D is struck down as violative of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and as also ultra vires of the rulemaking power of the State Government. The petitioners are entitled to their costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 90 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t to collection of the said amounts purporting to be by way of tax . The word deposit means entrustment . When a dealer collects any amount professing to be by way of tax, the customer who pays the amount does not deposit the amount with the dealer. The dealer gathers the money as tax. But where the customer in order to meet a contingency deposits any amount with the dealer, there is only the entrustment of the amount and the position of the dealer is in the nature of a trustee for the amount. The taking of deposit by a dealer cannot be construed as collection of any amount by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax. In our judgment, on the facts found by the first respondent, the petitioner has not contravened the provisions of section 18 and consequently the imposition of penalty under section 18 is clearly illegal. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 1st September, 1969, is quashed. In the circumstances, no costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (9) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT
Prohibitory injunction contained in rule 31B - Held that:- As taken rule 31B and the notification issued by the State Government on December 26, 1967, must be declared ultra vires, and since rule 31B and the notification are ultra vires, the communication issued by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes to the railway authorities must also be declared unauthorised. A writ will therefore issue declaring rule 31B and the notification issued by the Government of Bihar on December 26, 1967, ultra vires, and the letter written by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes to the railway authorities is also declared unauthorised.
|
