Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-30-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1501
sudhamay basu, j.1. this rule was obtained by the petitioner who was committed to the court of session by a magistrate, 1st class, sealdah on october 19, 1973, to be tried along with two others of charges under sections 304/34, i. p. c. and under section 27 of the arms act. the occurrence, according to the prosecution, took place on the 8th of september, 1971, at about 11.30 p. m. when the three accused involved in the sessions trial fired a few shots at 38/a, murari pukur road, killing one person and injuring another who were on the roof of the house. the petitioner alleges that he was seventeen years five months when the alleged offence was committed. an affidavit sworn by the father of the petitioner, sri kalipada bhowmick, states that the petitioner was born on 13-4-1954. when the sessions trial was due to commence the petitioner submitted that as he was a child under the west bengal children act, 1959, he could not be tried with the other adult accused persons. the learned sessions judge noted that the petitioner did not contend that he was still a child but the contention on behalf of the petitioner was that the magistrate who committed the petitioner to the court of session had no jurisdiction. the learned sessions judge held that he assumed jurisdiction on the basis of commitment. as the matter related to jurisdiction he gave leave to the petitioner to move this court. in the circumstances a rule was obtained in this case calling upon the district magistrate, 24 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-04-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Bom106; (1979)81BOMLR49
order1 to 23 ..... 24. shri m.h. shah the learnedcounsel for the defendants,contends that the agreements betweenthe plaintiffs and the defendants are theagreements which come within the purview of the 1961 act and that the claimsof the plaintiffs in the suit are matterswhich have been agreed to be referred toarbitration by virtue of and under thearbitration clauses contained in the saidagreements. consequently, the learnedcounsel claims that under section 3 of the1961 act the suit is liable to be stayed.the learned counsel emphasises the peremptory character of the legislative injunction in section 3 and submits that thecourt has no option but to grant stay ofthe proceedings. shri. a.k. sen, thelearned counsel for the plaintiffs, arguesthat the provisions of section 3 of the 1961act are not attracted in the present case.the conflict will have to be resolved withreference to the relevant provisions oflaw seen in the context of the facts ofthe present case.25. the 1961 act gives effect to the convention on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards adopted at new york on 10th june 1958. the said convention was verified by india and deposited with the secretary general of the united nations on 13th july 1960. the 1961 act is intended inter alia to provide for speedy settlement of disputes through arbitration by removing the constraints to which such settlements were subjected to by the provisions of the indian law. section 2 of the 1961 act by its material provision defines .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-25-1977
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)536
madon, j. 1. in each of these thirteen references under s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act') made at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax, the same question has been referred to us viz. 'whether on a true and proper interpretation of the first part of sub-clause (2) of s. 46 of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the word 'person' occurring therein applies only to a person who is a dealer and not to a person who is not a dealer in respect of the transactions and therefore the order forfeiting the amount of tax collected on casual sale was bad in law ?' parties in all these references are the same and so are the facts necessary for the determination of these references. we, therefore, propose to dispose of these thirteen references by a common judgment. 2. the respondent, the poona municipal corporation, was at all material time registered as a dealer under the said act. during the period january 1, 1962 to march 31, 1967 the respondent made sales of scrap materials, skins, refuse, empty barrels, compost, etc. by calling for tenders and accepting the highest tender. in respect of the materials so sold, the respondent charged to the purchasers and collected from them certain amounts by way of sales tax and general sales tax which the respondent would have been liable to pay had the sales made by them been exigible to tax under the said act. in the relevant assessment periods .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-1977
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)560
madon, j. 1. the facts which have given rise to the above four references are that one b.r. rowe was, prior to february, 12, 1963, carrying on business under the trade name and style of messrs rowe and rowe, as the sole proprietor thereof. for the assessment periods april 1, 1954 to march 31, 1955, april 1, 1955 to march 31, 1956, april 1, 1956 to march 31, 1957 and april 1,1957 to march 31, on march 25, 1963 a notice was served upon the said rowe to show cause why his assessment for the period april 1, 1954 to march 31, 1955 should not be revoked. on december 2, 1963 the said rowe entered into an agreement with one p. g. bhuleskar, an employee of his, to carry on the said business of messrs rowe and rowe in partnership with him. on january 9, 1964 the said rowe died, and information of his death was given by the said bhuleskar to the sales tax officer by his letter dated january 28, 1964. after the death of the said rowe a notice was served upon the said bhuleskar on march 2, 1964 to show cause why the assessment made against the said proprietary concern of messrs rowe and rowe should not be reopened for the period april 1, 1955 to march 31, 1956. on july 3, 1964 two notices were served upon the said bhuleskar to show cause why the said assessments made against the proprietary concern of messrs rowe and rowe for the periods april 1, 1956 to march 31, 1957 and april 1, 1957 to march 31m 1958 should not be reopened. on july 31, 1964 the sales tax officer passed an order .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-28-1977
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)706
madon, j. 1. these are three references under s. 9(2) of the central sales tax act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the central act'), read with s. 61 (1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the bombay act'), which give rise to common questions of law. 2. the applicants were at all materials times registered as dealers both under the central act and the bombay act. the carried on the business of bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by them for sale as also bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by others for sale. for this purpose the applicants used to purchase grey fabrics, dyes, caustic soda and others processing materials. so far as the purchase of these materials from outside-state dealers were concerned, the applicants used to purchase such materials on declarations given by them to their vendors, sating that the goods so purchased were intended for use by them in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. under the provisions of the central act in force when such declarations were given the rate of tax applicable 2as 2 per cent. during the course of assessment proceedings for the periods january 1, 1964 to december 31, 1964 (hereinafter for the sake brevity referred to as 'the first period'), january 1, 1965 to december 31, 1965 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the second period') and january 1, 1966 to december 31, 1966 (hereinafter for the sake of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-1977
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)750
kania, j. 1. these are two references under section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'), made at the instance of the applicants-assessees. sales tax reference no. 8 of 1976 pertains to the period 1-1-1964 to 31-12-1964 and sales tax reference no. 23 pertains to the period 1-1-1965 to 31-12-1965 the same questions have been referred to us in these two references and the material facts are the same. both these references have been made by a common order and on a common statement of facts. in these circumstances, we are disposing of the said references by a common judgment. 2. the assessees are a private limited company and are manufacturers of glass bottles. the assessees are dealers registered under the said act. in february 1960 the public relations officer of the sales tax department issued a bulletin wherein it was stated that empty glass bottles would be covered by entry 22 of schedule e to the said act, the said entry being the residuary entry. the commissioner of sales tax, by his determination order dated 20th august 1963, in a proceeding under section 52 of the said act taken out by some other dealer, also held that glass bottles were covered by entry 22 of schedule e to the said act. under the impression that this was the correct position in law, the assessees, who were selling glass bottles at a rate below re. 1/- per bottle, collected sales tax at 3% and general sales tax at 2% on the sales of bottles during the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-28-1977
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Bom)119
madon, j. 1. this is a reference under s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, made at the instance of the assesses, who are a partnership firm and were registered as a dealer under the said act and also held a licence under s. 23 of the said act, in respect of the assessment period nov. 3, 1965 to march 31, 1966. 2. the facts material for the purposes of deciding this reference are that during the said assessment period the applicants purchased plastic bangles of the value of rs. 2,89,900 from authority (india) private limited. in respect of the bangles so purchased by them aurobrite (india) private limited issued to the applicants invoices in which at the end there appear the words :- 'g.s. tax) ) included' sales tax) the amount of such tax included in the invoices was not separately shown. during the assessment period the applicants resold the bangles so purchased by them for a total price of rs. 3,92,208/- out of these sales, sales of the value of rs. 50,000/- were effected to registered dealers who held recognition granted by the commissioner of the sales tax and against declarations in form 15 to the bombay sales tax rules, 1959, given by such purchasers. in respect of the remaining sales of the aggregate value of rs. 3,42,208/- the applicants claimed a deduction as resales u/s. 10(2(i) of the said act. this claim of the applicants was rejected. according to the applicants, they had paid a sum of rs. 8,693.88 p. by way of sales tax and rs. 7,568.52 p. way of general .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-18-1977
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Bom)245; 41STC61(Bom)
d.p. madon, j.1. this is a reference under s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, made at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax. the question which has been submitted to us in this reference as follows : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal, having held that reduction gears fall under entry 22 of schedule e to the bombay sales tax act, 1959, with effect from 15th july, 1962, after the amendment to entry 20 of schedule c to the said act on that date, was correct in giving the benefit of the determination of the commissioner of sales tax under s. 52 of the said act in the case of messrs. tekno works (india) up to 10th july, 1965, to the respondents, thereby holding that the sales of reduction gears effected by the respondents up to 10th july, 1995, would fall under entry 20 of schedule c to the said act ?' 2. the respondents were registered as a dealer under the said act and carried on business in electrical goods. they were assessed for the period 1st october, 1964, to 30th september, 1965, by the sales tax officer, poona. in respect of sales of reduction gears made by the respondents the sales tax officer held that the rate of tax which was applicable was the one provided by the residuary entry, namely, entry 22 of schedule e to the said act. being aggrieved by this order the respondents went in appeal to the assistant commissioner of sales tax. that appeal was dismissed. the respondents thereupon went in second appeal to the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-09-1977
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Bom)363
madon, j.1. this is a reference under s. 9(2) of the central sales tax act, 1956, read with s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959. the question submitted to us for our determination in this reference is as follows : 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of s. 36(3) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, could not be imported in the assessments under the central sales tax act, 1956, to levy penalty for late payment of central sales tax and that such penalty was without the authority of law ?' 2. the brief facts necessary to be related for the purpose of this reference are that the respondents were registered as dealer under the central sales tax act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to and 'the central act'). in respect of the assessment period april 1, 1965 to march 31, 1966 the respondents were assessed to tax under the central act by the sales tax officer, a ward, unit iv, bombay, on february 18, 1969. the sales tax officer also imposed upon the respondents a penalty in the sum of rs. 1,190.60p. for delay in payment of tax under the central act for the quarter ended september 30, 1965 and for non-payment of tax for the quarter ended december 31, 1965, which amounts were shown as payable in the returns filed by the respondents. the sales tax officer imposed this penalty purporting to do so under s. 9(3) of the central act, as it then stood, read with s. 36(3) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 ( .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1977
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)281
madon, j.1. this reference under s. 61 (1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under s. 52 of the said act. 2. the respondents, voltas ltd. are a public limited company. at the relevant time they were acting as distributors for kaira district co-operative milk producers' union, anand, in the state of gujarat. the said union manufactures various products, including cheese. the cheese so manufactured by them was marketed in various forms, including in the form of cheese cubes or as they are referred to on the record, chaplets, packed in aluminium foils and sold under the trade name 'amul'. on august 24, 1967 the respondents sold 40 packets of amul cheese to messrs empire stores for a sum of rs. 139.20p. each of the said 40 packets contained ten cheese cubes or chaplets, each weighing 25 grams, packed in aluminium foils. in their cash memo in respect of the cheese so supplied to messrs empire stores the respondents added a sum of rs. 6.96p. for sales tax at the rate of 5 per cent and rs. 4.80p. for general sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent. thus, according to the said cash memo the respondents charged and collected from m/s. empire stores sales tax and general sales tax on the basis that these cheese cubes were taxable under entry 6 of schedule e to the said act. 3. at the relevant time the said entry 6 provided as follows : ----------------------------------------------------------------------serial description of goods rate of sales .....Tag this Judgment!