Reported in : 1988(15)ECC79; 1988(32)ELT355(AP)
.....in contravention of the act, the question of levying penalty does not arise. further, for levying penalty under clause (d) of section 111, the fact that the possessor has knowledge of the goods being liable for confiscation under section 111, has to be proved. in the instant case no such knowledge has been proved. in my view, therefore the order of penalty is not sustainable. 8. the impugned order, so far as it is relevant, reads as follows: 'government observe that the finding of the appellate authority that there is adequate circumstantial evidence in this case to prove that impugned articles were illegally imported into india and that they were kept in the shop for sale is correct and accordingly reject the revision application'. a perusal of the order shows that the order of respondent no. 2 was sustained by the 1st respondent on the ground that the goods are kept in the shop for sale. this was not the subject-matter of the charge. further the goods in question were not seized and penalty was not imposed on the ground that the said goods are kept for sale. for this reason alone, the order under revision is liable to be quashed. 9. for the above reasons, the writ.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR1988AP281
.....scheme i.e. dairy development corporation', as illegal and arbitrary. for the purpose of narrative, w.p. no. 11827185 is referred. 3. the relevmt facts in brief are: the petitioner has been supplying milk regularly since 15 years to the sainya farm (military farm) secunderabad who is the 1st respondent herein, which caters to the military personnel centred around the twin cities of hyderabad and secunderabed. he has been supplying in huge quantities uninterruptedly to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent and for that purpose he had to build up sufficient infrastructure. he has been supplying 500 litres of milk per day which supply is in off- season and in flush season regular, for which different people have to lend their hand to keep the chain running and so, he had to depend upon ten suppliers from different villages. to that end, the petitioner advanced at the moment a sum of rs.40,000/- to a number of persons and some of them have made their livelihood to supply milk to the petitioner's agency. they purchased buffaloes and the required appliances for dairy farming by raising loans from nationalised banks and also the petitioner had to develop a transport system so as to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1987)62CTR(All)150; [1987]167ITR827(All); [1987]32TAXMAN157(All)
.....it was not necessary for the income-tax appellate tribunal or for us to examine the applicability of article 289(1) of the constitution to the facts of the present case. it is settled law that no court should engage itself in deciding a futile controversy--a controversy which does not call for decision which will have no bearing on its result. the controversy about the applicability of article 289(1) of the constitution is merely academic in the facts of the present case.8. it has been held in madanlal dharnidharka v. cit : [1948]16itr227(bom) and cit v. m.p. sugar mills (p) ltd. : [1975]101itr655(all) , that unnecessary or irrelevant questions should not be answered.9. it was noted in the previous order of the high court rejecting the application under section 256(2) that since the revenue had not filed any application against the judgment of the income-tax appellate tribunal holding the assessee to be entitled to exemption under section 10(20), there was no occasion for the assessee to prefer the same against the tribunal's order. the order of the tribunal, as it stands at present, is in favour of the corporation. in cit v. damodaran : [1980]121itr572(sc) , the supreme.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC14
order 1. notice in the special leave petition was confined to the question of sentence. no one appeared for the state though called. special leave granted. arguments heard. 2. looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that this is a first offence and a period of nearly four years has elapsed, we think it would subserve the ends of justice if the substantive sentence is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months but with an enhanced fine. we accordingly enhance the fine from rs 5000 to rs 7500. the amount of fine shall be deposited within two weeks from today, failing which the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 3. subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC32
e.s. venkataramiah and; m.m. dutt, jj.1. even though two adjournments were given to the state government no counter-affidavit is filed in this case by the state government. the petitioner was detained under the national security act on july 10, 1985. subsequently, the order of detention was revoked by the government of maharashtra on the report of the advisory board dated november 28, 1985. we are informed that immediately after that order of detention was revoked the petitioner was detained under an order dated november 28, 1985. the petitioner has questioned the second order of detention dated november 28, 1985. even though an opportunity was given to the state government to defend its action as stated earlier it has not done so. in the circumstances, we feel that any further detention of the petitioner is unconstitutional. the respondent, state government of maharashtra is directed to release the petitioner forthwith. the writ petition is accordingly allowed.2. a copy of this order shall be sent to the state government immediately.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR1987SC1774; 1987(12)ECC224; 1989(20)LC407(SC); 1987(27)ELT598(SC); 1986(2)SCALE880; (1987)2SCC457
.....obviously that must be under an arrangement between the buyer and the assessee it is not the physical capability of the packing to be returned which is the determining factor because, in the event the words 'by the buyer to the assessee' need not have found a place in the section: they would be superfluous. what is required for the purpose of attracting the applicability of the exclusion clause in section 4(4)(d)(i) is that the packing must be returnable by the buyer to the assessee. the question which has to be asked in each case is: is the packing m this case returnable by the buyer to the assessee and obviously it cannot be said that the packing is returnable by the buyer to the assessee unless there is an arrangement between them that it shall be returned. here m the present case it is not the contention of the petitioner that there was any such arrangement for return of the packing by the wholesale buyers to the petitioner nor is there any evidence to that effect. the excise authorities were, therefore right in not excluding the cost of packing in determination of the assessable value of the goods. the special leave petition will, therefore, stand rejected.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC668
.....think the ends of justice will be served by imposing a lesser punishment, namely, withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for a period of three years and in consequences loss of seniority.4. we accordingly, set aside the judgment and order of the high court and the order passed by the senior divisional operating superintendent, northern railway. allahabad dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant as also the impugned order passed by the divisional operating superintendent, allahabad, directing the removal of the appellant from service. for his action of misconduct, we direct the imposition of the minor punishment on the appellant of withholding his two increments with cumulative effect for a period of three years. we further direct that the appellant shall be reinstated in service without any back wages or allowances from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. there shall however be no break in continuity of service for all purposes except loss of seniority for the aforesaid period of three years.5. the appeal is disposed of accordingly. no costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987CriLJ1223; 1987(12)DRJ66; 1989(40)ELT295(Del)
.....one month after passing of the detention order. there has thus been, according to the petitioner, an undue delay in the detention which is not satisfactorily explained. (ii) the second contention of the petitioner is that the detenu made a representation on the 27th may, 1986 requesting the detaining authority to supply him with copies of a number of documents. two sets of these documents have been specifically mentioned and relied upon by the detaining authority while ordering the detention. the first of these are the application made by parminder singh for grant of anticipatory bail and the order therein, which though mentioned as items 24 and 25 in the annexures to the grounds of detention, had not been supplied to the detenu. in paragraph 13 of the grounds of detention it is specifically mentioned that the administrator had gone through the copies of applications moved in the various courts, replies thereof and the judgments of the courts. it is, thereforee, clear that the anticipatory had application of parminder singh as well as the order made thereon have been relied upon in the grounds of detention. the second set of documents consist of a black white sheet of paper,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987CriLJ1583; 31(1987)DLT52; 1987(12)DRJ140
.....to the conclusion that the article had to be read as a whole and in its opinion even though there may be some objectionable passages in the said article but on the whole the said article was not one to incite any religious feelings and there was no malicious intention on the part of the author of the article. after a period of 14 years, we do not see any compelling circumstance which should make us disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court who had the benefit of recording the evidence and whose decision cannot be said to be perverse. it is possible, by reading the article as a whole, to come to the conclusion that the article was only meant to be by way of an advice and there was no malicious intention on the part of the author. s. 153a, penal code uses the expression 'promotes or attempts to promote'. this clearly shows that there has to be means read on the part of the accused to commit the offence of promoting disharmony amongst different religions. this means read or malicious intention can be proved either by evidence or, at times, by writing itself. the writing can be of such a nature that it may become apparent to the court that any reasonable man or.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987(12)DRJ170
.....present writ petition is to the order of re-entry which had been issued on 24/6/1972 by the land & development office, delhi.(2) briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had purchased a plot of land no. 72, ring road, lajpat nagar, new delhi under the provisions of displaced persons (compensation & rehabilitation) act, 1954.(3) after the building plans had been approved by the municipal authorities, a 21 storey bungalow was constructed on the said land. the trouble for the petitioner arose when on 20/11/1969 he let out the said premises for residential-cum-office purposes to respondent no. 2, m/s. curewel (india) limited at a monthly rent of rs. 2300.00 .(4) the petitioner received a letter dated 20/3/1970 from the ministry of rehabilitation wherein it was stated that the letting out of the said bungalow residence-commence purposes amounted to a contravention of condition (vi) of the terms and conditions on which the land had been leased to the petitioner. the said condition reads as under :- 'the lessee doth to the intent that the burden of the covenants may run with the said land and may bind any permitted assignee there of hereby covenant with the lesser as follows :-.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT