L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S Geo Tech Foundations & Construction vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Pune

1. These appeals are directed against separate judgments of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Central (in short 'CESTAT') . The factual background needs to be noted in brief.

4. The Commissioner adjudicated the case demanding duty and confiscating the girders which were by then removed to be placed on the bridge and imposed penalties.

9. It is to be noted that in the facts of the present case, earlier notice was issued which was withdrawn and the second notice was issued on 8.5.1996. Prior to the amendment by Act 10 of 2000 w.e.f. 12.5.2000 the extended period of limitation was one year. After the 2000 amendment the period has become 5 years.

12. One further aspect cannot be lost sight of. The appellant as well as Konkan Railways raised a definite plea of bona fide. Such a plea had not been rejected. On the contrary, as noted above, there was diversion of views and the issue was answered by different Benches of the CESTAT. That being so, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. As the facts alleged to have been suppressed by the appellant were known to the department, in that view of the matter the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Act has no application. Invocation of Section 11-A, was impermissible, and therefore, we set aside the order of CESTAT which is the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No.5305 of 2005. The appeal is allowed.

13. In view of the conclusions in C.A.5305 of 2005 there is no need to consider the question of marketability and/or excisability. The issue is academic. In view of the decision in connected Civil Appeal No.5305 of 2005, Civil Appeal Nos.7412 of 2005 and 7621 of 2005 are allowed.

14. The show cause notice was issued on 30.5.1996. In view of what has been decided in C.A. No.5305/2005, the appeal deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation.

15. The dispute relates to the period from April 1993 to July, 1993. A show cause notice was issued on 8.5.1996. In view of what has been stated in C.A.No.5305 of 2005 decided today, the appeal deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation.

Civil Appeal No 2385 of 2006

16. The period involved is November, 1993 to December, 1994 and the show cause notice was issued on 3.12.1996. In view of what has been stated in C.A.No. 5305 of 2005 decided today, this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct.
State Of Punjab & Others Etc.Etc vs M/S. Perfect Synthetics Etc.Etc

2. Respondent-assessee M/s. Perfect Synthetics is a partnership firm engaged in the business of purchase, sale and manufacturing of yarn. In this civil appeal we are concerned with assessment year 2001-02. Assessee is registered under Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "1948 Act"). Assessee claims that after purchasing raw- material from exempted units within the State it has used the same in the manufacture of yarn, majority of yarn being sold in the course of intra-state sales and tax on finished goods being paid. Some of the units from whom the assessee purchased raw-material stood exempted from payment of tax under Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 (for short, "1991 Rules").

17. For the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence, this civil appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
State Of Haryana vs M/S Samtel India Ltd

On 1.2.1998, however, the respondent submitted an application requesting for insertion of "colour monitor" in the earlier eligibility certificate dated 23.2.1995. By order dated 11.10.1999 the competent authority rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision under rule 28A authorizing such addition in the eligibility certificate already granted.

Suffice it to state that the decision of the competent authority dated 11.10.1999 ultimately came to be challenged before Haryana Tax Tribunal. By its order dated 30.11.2005, the Tribunal accepted the appeal inter alia on the ground that a liberal approach needs to be taken while interpreting the said rule 28A and, accordingly, directed the Department (appellant herein) to add "colour monitor" to the eligibility certificate dated 23.2.1995. The decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court by impugned judgment dated 9.7.2007 in CWP No. 9764/07.

For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 9.7.2007 dismissing the Department's CWP No. 9764/07 and, consequently, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, we direct restoration of CWP No. 9764/07 on to the file of the High Court.

Accordingly, the Department's civil appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.
Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd vs State Of Kerala

3. It demised the factory in favour of one "Eagle Distillery (P) Ltd." (Lessee) by a Deed of Lease dated 1st December, 1984, wherefor requisite approval was granted by the Government of Kerala on or about 27th April, 1985.

4. The Sales Tax Authorities were intimated thereabout by communications dated 4th May, 1985 and 30th May, 1985.

5. The `lessee' applied for registration under the said Act. The process for registration, however, got delayed. It asked the appellant to allow it to use the old registration number. By communications of diverse dates the same was allowed. It is, however, stated that permission to use the registration number of the appellant had not been renewed after 31st December, 1985.

6. The `lessee', however, continued to file returns in its own name. It did not deposit the amount of sales tax collected by it. It furthermore appears that the requisite forms for carrying out inter trade sale and intra trade sale, namely Forms `C' and `D', which at the request of the appellant had been supplied by the revenue, were continued to be used by the `lessee'. A notice for recovery of Sales Tax for the Assessment Years 1984-85, 1986- 87 and 1987-88 was served upon the appellant.

Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, a pre-assessment notice dated 16th November, 1993 was served both upon the appellant and the `lessee' proposing to reject the returns and accounts as incorrect and incomplete and to finalise the assessment on the basis of the best judgment 5 assessment as specified therein. The `lessee' did not respond thereto. Cause was shown by the appellant. In the assessment proceeding only the appellant represented.

The assessing authority passed an order of assessment holding both the appellant as also `the lessee' jointly and severally liable for the sales tax dues both under the Act as also Central Sales Tax Act for the Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Statutory appeals were preferred thereagainst and by a judgment and order dated 30th January, 1995 the appellate authority allowed the said appeals in so far as the appellant was concerned and directed recovery of the dues only from `the lessee'. The Revenue preferred second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 20th December, 2001 allowed the appeals of the Revenue. Revision applications filed thereagainst by the appellant before the High Court have been dismissed holding :-

32. In that view of the matter, it is not a case where, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should interfere with the impugned judgment.

34. We may observe that in law the appellant is liable to pay the amount of sales tax assessed by the assessing authority.

35. Appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Worldcom Multimedia & Ors vs Arvind Kumar

2. Though the respondent was served with notice, he has not chosen to appear.

3. The petitioners seek transfer of the complaint filed by the respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadamkuan, Patna, Bihar. The petitioners' Company is having its registered office at New Delhi. The complainant alleges to be a representative and agent of M/s CFL Capital Financial Services Ltd., having its registered office at Kolkata. Admittedly, the petitioners had nothing to do with the complainant (Respondent herein) in his personal capacity. Neither the complainants nor the company on whose behalf the respondent allegedly filed the complaint have their place of business at Patna, nor did any transaction take place at Patna.

5. The Transfer Petition is allowed accordingly.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr

3. Since the order is practically unreasoned, it is necessary to take note of the factual background. On 15.9.1997 a Notification was issued under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 (in short the 'Act') read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (in short the 'General Clauses Act'). The Governor directed creation of a new District by the name of Baghpat with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. A Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 was filed challenging the aforesaid Notification. There were essentially two prayers i.e. one was to quash the Notification dated 15.9.1997 and the other not to permit Baghpat District to continue. A Writ Petition Civil Misc. No. 39756 of 1998 had been filed wherein creation of a new District "Sant Kabir Nagar" was challenged in Ram Milan Sukla & Ors. By order dated 15.1.1999 a Division Bench of the High Court quashed the Notification dated 9.11.1998 and directed a fresh consideration. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:

5. In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 to which the present dispute relates, counter affidavit was filed on 16.3.1999. Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 1999 was filed before the High Court challenging the creation of Kausambi District. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.4.1999 with reference to the order passed by the High Court in Ram Milan Shukla's case referred to above.

13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Mahant Ram Khilawan Das vs State Of M.P

2. The case of the appellant is that a temple in the name of "Shala Janki Raman Mandir' in village Gadhi Padrariya and the agricultural lands (in short "the suit lands") as fully described in paragraph 1 of the plaint were owned by Mahant Ramdas, who was the guru of the appellant, as Manager of the same. The temple and the suit lands were bequeathed to the appellant by Mahant Ramdas to succeed to the same as Manager. In the year 1987-88, the Collector Panna started auctioning the suit lands and therefore, the appellant filed a suit for declaration of title with regard to the suit lands and also a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the enjoyment and possession of the same. The suit filed by the appellant was contested by the respondent on the ground that the temple and the suit lands were the property of the state and that Mahant Ramdas was appointed as a priest and after his death, the appellant was appointed in his place as the priest. It was further alleged that when the appellant sent a resignation letter to the Collector, the same was accepted and another person was appointed in place of the appellant as the priest. Neither Mahant Ramdas nor the appellant owned the temple or the suit lands, which were the property of the state and the Will in question was a fabricated document, which was prepared to grab the temple and the suit lands. The trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Panna and the same was allowed. Against this decision of the first appellate court, the respondent filed a second appeal, which, as noted herein earlier, was allowed. It is this judgment of the High Court which is impugned in this appeal.

Be that as it may, without coming to a positive conclusion on the above aspect, we are of the view that the substantial question of law was not properly framed and in that view of the matter, the appeal needs to be allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside and the second appeal is remitted to the High Court for framing a proper substantial question of law and after framing such question, proceed to decide the appeal on merits on the evidence already on record. Whatever observations have been arrived at by us in this judgment shall be taken to be tentative and the High Court would be free to decide the second appeal after framing a proper substantial question of law.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. We request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal within a period of 6 months from the date of supply of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Bhagwan Singh Bhati & Ors

2. The respondents had filed the writ petitions seeking directions to the present appellants for giving employment to members of the families of persons whose lands were acquired at the instance of appellant M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. According to them, there was an agreement with the company whereby the company had agreed to give compensation for the land acquired and also to give employment to one member of the family of the land owners.

3. The learned Single Judge taking note of the submissions of the company that there was no such agreement for giving employment but in view of the policy some preference was to be given, disposed of the writ petitions. It was the stand of the company that the only direction that is to be given was to consider cases of the writ petitioners in consonance with the applicable rules of the company. The High Court referred to an earlier order and allowed the special appeals.

9. The High Court has not indicated as to how the factual scenario is similar. No finding has also been recorded on the stand that the writ petition not only was belated but also was founded on a fabricated document. It is therefore appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The High Court is requested to explore the possibility of disposing of the appeal by the end of July, 2008.

10. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
State Of Rajasthan vs M/S. Chiesel & Hammer Const. Company

State of Rajasthan has filed the present appeals. A notice inviting tender was issued for construction of Ghar Ganga Aquaduct of RMC of Chhapi Project from RP 7225 to 7915 M. Certain time frame was given for completion of the work. Respondent submitted its tender which was accepted and an agreement was entered into between the State Government and the respondent. Since the progress of the work was very slow, the State Govt. issued several notices requesting the contractor to execute the contract in terms of the Agreement. In the year 2001, the contractor is alleged to have abandoned the work. It is also alleged that in spite of a number of notices the respondent-contractor did not re-start the work and instead filed Writ Petition No.482 of 2002 before the High Court for C.A.No.1896/08 etc. .... (contd.)

from the contractor shall refer the disputes to the committee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application."

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court appointing Shri B.D. Sharma as the sole arbitrator and instead refer the matter to the Empowered Standing Committee constituted by the State of Rajasthan as per Clause 23 of the Agreement for resolving the dispute between the parties. Since the dispute between the parties is pending since 1998, we direct the Empowered Standing Committee to resolve the dispute within a period of six months of the production of a certified copy of this order at its end. Consequently, orders dated 20th November 2003 and 09th February 2005 are also set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
Uttar Gujarat S.R.V. Sangh Ltd vs M/S. Mehsana Dist. Cent. Co-Op. Bank Ltd ...

3. Background facts as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows:

The aforesaid order of the Court of Board of Nominees was challenged before the Cooperative Tribunal by way of Appeal Nos. 243/94 and 216/94. The said appeals were dismissed by the Cooperative Tribunal by its order dated 31.5.1998 and order of the Court of Board of Nominees was confirmed. Against the said order of the Cooperative Tribunal, Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 moved Writ Petitions before the High Court of Gujarat. In the said Writ Petition, even though the appellant was impleaded as a party respondent, it was not served with notice and therefore the appellant could not remain present at the time of hearing of the Writ Petitions. Both the Writ Petitions were heard and dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat by order dated 2.12.2004.

Thereafter the appellant filed a review application in the High Court of Gujrat bearing No. Misc. Civil Application (Stamp No. 231/2005) interalia on the ground that no notice was served and hence no opportunity of hearing was given to it. The said review application was dismissed by the present impugned order dated 13.5.2005 on the ground that no 'adverse order' was passed against the appellant.

After the review petition was dismissed Respondent No. 3 filed execution proceedings in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, being Darkhast No. 378 of 2005 and obtained ex parte garnishee orders against the appellant. The appellant's account in Respondent No. 1 Bank was seized.

8. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in spite of notice.

10. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

11. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Ramgarh Cantonment Board & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

3. Appellant No.1, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, a board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in exercise of the power vested in it under section 60 of the Act invited tender for collection of vehicle tax entering into Ramgarh Cantonment Area. Respondent no.3 in this appeal, Mukesh Prasad being the highest bidder was awarded the contract and was asked to realize vehicle tax at the rate of Rs.10/- from each goods vehicle entering into the Ramgarh Cantonment Area for a period of six months starting from 12.3.2001. Respondent no.3 deposited the earnest money. On 8.3.200, a formal agreement was executed between respondent no.3 and the Cantonment Board. The Cantonment Board immediately after executing the said agreement issued a letter dated 11.3.2001 restraining respondent no.3 from collecting vehicle entry tax on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, Bihar.

28. Before we part with the judgment we would like to observe that, according to respondent No. 3, the Cantonment Board authorised respondent no.3 vide order dated 3.3.2001 to realize the vehicle entry tax and in pursuance to an agreement between the Cantonment Board and respondent no.3, respondent no.3 deposited Rs.25,000/- and in the auction respondent no.3, being the highest bidder, deposited Rs.3.35 lacs as per the resolution of the Board of the Cantonment Board dated 28.2.2001. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, whatever amount has been deposited by respondent no.3 shall be refunded to him within eight weeks because according to respondent no.3 in view of the restraint order, respondent no.3 could not collect any amount towards the levy of entry tax on vehicles. This direction is given while keeping the well known Legal Principle of equity, fairness and good conscience in view. No further directions are necessary.

29. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Ashok Shankar Guha vs Air India Ltd

2. The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the action of the Management withdrawing the promotion of the appellant as Senior Check Flight Purser (Grade 26) and directing recovery of the excess payment made to him during the period 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2002. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by its order dated 13th July, 2004 set aside the order withdrawing the promotion and referred the matter back to the Respondent to reconsider the same after giving an opportunity to the appellant.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The appellant is entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Check Flight Purser from 1.1.2000 and the appellant shall be entitled for all other consequential benefits.

9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Rathnaiah vs State Of Karnataka

3. They preferred appeal before the High Court which was numbered as Criminal Appeal no.553 of 2001. By the impugned order the conviction and sentence so far as the present appellant is concerned was confirmed while the sentences were reduced so far as the accused persons are concerned, but the fine amount was enhanced.

7. The manner in which the appeal has been dealt with is not a correct way to deal with the appeal. No attempt appears to have been done by the High Court to appreciate the rival stand and to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective.

8. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

9. Appeal is allowed.
State Of Assam & Anr vs Utpal Barua

Despite of receipt of notice, neither any counsel represents the respondent nor he himself appears before this court. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we propose to dispose of these appeals with a short order.

The post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (hereinafter 'MVI', for short) was advertised. The selection list was prepared on 17/11/1992. The said list was valid for a period of one year. It lapsed on 17/11/1993. The respondent filed a writ petition in 1996 after the lapse of selection list. This fact was pointed out to the learned single Judge hearing the writ petition. Ignoring such contention, a writ of mandamus was issued directing the appellant to appoint the respondent to the post of MVI. Aggrieved thereby, a writ appeal was preferred by the State but without any result. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

For the reasons aforestated, both the orders of the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench are set aside. These appeals are allowed. No costs.
Orient Traders vs Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupati

3. The relevant period is from November, 1994 to March, 1995 which falls in the Assessment Year 1994-95. The appellant deals in the sale of silver bars. It filed its return showing a turnover of Rs.14,33,01,470/- and paid sales tax at the rate of =%. The Assessing Authority accepted the said return and completed the assessment on 27.11.1995. Later, the Assessing Officer issued notice on 17.8.1996 proposing to reopen the assessment under Section 14(4)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act") and bring the above turnover to tax at the rate of 2%, apart from additional tax and surcharge, on the premise that G.O. Ms No. 1092 and G.O. Ms No. 252 reducing the rate of sales tax to =% were applicable only to gold bullion and the same were not applicable to silver bullion and specie. Questioning the said show cause notice, the appellant filed W.P. No. 21503 of 1996. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy of filing the objection and getting a decision from the authorities under the Act on merits. The appellant thereafter filed objections claiming that the reduced rate of sales tax under the G.O. was applicable not only to gold bullion but also to silver bullion. That the bracketed words "gold" used in the above G.O. applies only to specie and not to bullion. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and framed the re-assessment. Questioning the said re-assessment, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1727 of 1997 which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

19. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same with costs.