advocatemmmohan
ravi shankar
The Assessment order dated 17-11-2011 passed by the 2nd respondent for the period April, 2009 to January, 2011 under the provisions of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the 2005 Act’) is assailed in this writ petition, inter alia on the ground that a common Assessment Order for the period April, 2009 to January, 2011 cannot be passed, since Section 2 (36) of the 2005 Act defines tax period as a calendar month or any other period as may be prescribed, and no other period other than a calendar month has been prescribed by the Rules made under the Act; and on the ground that the Assessment Order is contrary to the provisions of Section 4 (9) (d) of the 2005 Act, which enjoins that ‘every dealer, other than those mentioned in clause (a) and (b) and whose annual total turnover is more than rupees five lakhs and less than rupees one crore and fifty lakhs (1.5 crore) shall pay tax at the rate of four percent (4%) of the taxable turnover of the sale or supply of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or drink served in restaurants, sweet-stalls, clubs, any other eating houses or anywhere whether indoor or outdoor or caterer.’ The contention is that the 2nd respondent erroneously interpreted this provision as restricted to the turnover comprising sales within the premises and erred in concluding that sales made outside the licenced premises are not to be computed under Section 4 (9) (d) of the 2005 Act.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 1322 of 2012 Dated: 23-1-2012 Between M/S Sri Balaji Ghee Sweets and Home Foods, Vijayawada, rep. by its Proprietor Mr.K.Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner (CT), No.I Division, Vijayawada and others …Respondents … Continue reading
service matters =declare the action of the Government in proposing to fill up 70% of the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies first, from among the Graduates and Diploma Holders, and then filling up of 30% of vacancies from among the Diploma holders, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to proviso to Rule 7 of the A.P. Direct Recruitment of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”), as amended by G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 29-01-2009. The Tribunal, vide its common order, dated 29-11-2011, disposed of the said O.As., by observing as follows:- “In view of the interconnectivity of the entire litigation with the pending Civil Appeals before the Hon’ble three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Writ Petitions which are pending before the Hon’ble High Court, it may not be desirable to take any decision in these matters by the Tribunal at this stage. It is necessary to await the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.Ps., and Hon’ble High Court in WPs. Accordingly, these OAs., be posted after the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court. In case the applicants need further clarifications/orders at this stage, they may approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court in this regard. With the above observations, the OAs., are disposed of.”
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICEV.ESWARAIAH and THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.Nos.34018, 33754, 34058 and 34059 of 2011 and W.P.No.287 of 2012 COMMIN ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. Heard both the counsel. 2. As common questions are involved in all these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of … Continue reading
election petition against Feroze Varun Gandhi — an election petition, which does not conform to the statutory requirements, is a dead petition and must be dismissed out rightly. In the present matter, in view of the findings on the aforesaid points the election petition suffers from material infirmities as it does not inter alia fulfil the statutory requirements of section 81 (3) and 83 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the contention that the election petition discloses triable issues, does not appear to have any merit. 84. For the aforesaid reasons, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Case :- ELECTION PETITION No. – 9 of 2009 Petitioner :- V.M.Singh S/O Mander Singh Respondent :- Feroze Varun Gandhi Petitioner Counsel :- In Person,Dr. Archana Pandey,M.N.Krishnamani,R.K. Pandey,Rajeev Kumar Singh,Ravi Shankar Prasad,U.N.Sharma Respondent Counsel :- K.N.Tripathi,K.R.Singh Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J. 1. Heard Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 