Posts

Showing posts from June, 2017
Whether the petition and the affidavit signed by the Advocate and not by the party is valid ? Whether the petition and the affidavit  signed by the Advocate and not by the party is valid.   ?  A.P. CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE CHAPTER-IV Affidavits 34. (New) Interpretation of words:- The word ‘affidavit’ in this chapter shall include any document required to be sworn and the words ‘swear’ and sworn’; shall include ‘affirm’ and affirmed’ 35. (37) Form:- Every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person and divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively and each paragraph as nearly as may b e, shall be confined to a district portion of the subject. Every affidavit shall be written or typed or printed and stitched book wise. The deponent shall sign at the foot of each page of the affidavit. Note:- For forms of Oath and affirmation refer the Scheduled to the Indian Oaths Act 1969. 36. (38) Description of deponent:- Every affidavit shall be affidavit shall subscribe his full name, the name o…

where the grounds for seeking both such reliefs are the same, it would not be necessary that a separate application be filed for condonation of the delay.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.911 OF 2017    

11-04-2017

P.Buchanna .. Petitioner

B.Yadagiri.. Respondent

Counsel for petitioner: Sri K.Sreenivas

Counsel for respondent:  --

<Gist:

>Head Note:    

? CASES REFERRED:    

1. 2007 (6) ALD 819 = 2008 (1) ALT 475
2. 2002 (6) ALD 473 = 2002 (5) ALT 766
3. 1988 (1) ALT 783
4. 2005 (1) ALT 805

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.911 OF 2017    
O R D E R

      This Revision Petition under Section115 CPC arises out of the
order dated 07.11.2016 of the learned II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.1156 of 2014 in
O.S.No.555 of 2013. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein
for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale dated
13.10.2012 and was decreed ex parte on 01.04.2014.  The petitioner
herein, the defendant in the suit, filed I.A.No.1156 of 2013 therein
under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the sai…

In Godrej Consumer Products Limited10, Entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka VAT Act read as under: 23. Chemical fertilizers, Chemical Fertilizer mixtures, bio-fertilizers, micro nutrients, gypsum, plant growth promoters and regulators; rodenticides, fungicides, weedicides and herbicides; insecticides or pesticides but excluding phenyl, liquid toilet cleaners, floor cleaners, mosquito coils, mosquito repellants and the, like used for non-agricultural or non-horticultural purposes. The Karnataka High Court compared the said entry with Entry 5 of Part-I of the Second Schedule to the earlier Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 which read thus: 5. Insecticides, pesticides, rodenticides, fungicides, weedicides, herbicides, plant regulators and plant growth nutrients excluding copper sulphate. No entry similar to Entry 78A of the Schedule-I of the APGST Act, or Entry 100(140) of Schedule-IV to the VAT Act, was considered in Godrej Consumer Products Limited10. The subject goods therein were, therefore, held to be insecticide killers falling within the word insecticide. The aforesaid decision of the Karnataka High Court does not therefore persuade us to take a similar view. Reliance placed by the petitioners, on Godrej Consumer Products Limited10, is therefore of no avail. XIX. CONCLUSION: Viewed from any angle, we find no infirmity either in the impugned orders of assessment, or the orders of the VAT appellate Tribunal which are subjected to challenge in the present proceedings by way of revision. All the Writ Petitions and the TREVCs fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY                            

W.P. Nos.23351 OF 2008 AND BATCH    

01-06-2017

Godrej Sara Lee Limited .Petitioner  

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) INT LTU, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad & Anr. . Respondents  

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel,
                              Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, and
                              Sri Karan Talwar.

Counsel for respondents: Sri M. Govind Reddy, Sri T. Vinod
                          Kumar and Sri J. Anil Kumar,
                          Learned Special Standing Counsel
                          for Commercial Taxes.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Citations:
1.      2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C)
2.      (2006) 5 SCC 596
3.      (2005) 2 SCC 460
4.      (2003) 3) SCC 111
5.      (2005) 4 SCC 189
6.      (2004) 4 SCC 481
7.      (2006) 145 STC 200 (SC)
8.      2008 (230) E.L.T. 7 (SC)
9.      (2009) 9 SCC…