Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (3.78 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 25 August, 1998

Camphor And Allied Products Ltd. vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2004

In Union of India v. State of Haryana (2000) 10 SCC 482 and State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 355 (SC); AIR 1977 SC 1132, it was held that where the controversy is likely to be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy."
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - M Katju - Full Document

Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 December, 2002

In Union of India v. State of Haryana (2000) 10 SCC 482 and State of U.P. v. Indian Plume Pipe Co. Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 355 (SC) ; (1977) UPTC 282 (SC) ; AIR 1977 SC 1132 it was held that where the controversy is likely to be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - M Katju - Full Document

Sophia Girls School vs Cantonment Board And Anr. [Alongwith ... on 16 September, 2003

15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to various decision e.g., M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2003 UPTC 10; Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of UP., 1977 UPTC 81 : (1978) 41 STC 147; Union of India and Anr v. State of Haryana and Anr, (2000) 10 SCC 482 and State of UP. and Ors v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., 1977 UPTC 282 (SC) : AIR 1977 SC 355, etc., where it was held that where the controversy is a purely legal one or is likely to be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy. The question whether property tax can be imposed on educational institutions is certainly of a recurring nature, and hence should be decided.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - M Katju - Full Document

Barco Electronic Systems (P) Ltd. ... vs State Of U.P. Through Institutional ... on 19 November, 2004

10. As regards the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has a clear right of appeal, it is well settled that where the controversy is likely to be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact it should be decided by the High Court instead of relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of appeal etc. vide M/s Filterco and Anr. v. Commissioner Trade Tax, , Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1995 UPTC 723 (LB), Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P., 1977 UPTC 81, Union of India and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., , State of U.P. and Ors. V. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., , M/s Cannon India Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2003 UPTC 10, etc. In our opinion the controversy in the present case is likelyto be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact. The facts alleged in paragraphs 10, 15, 16, 18, 22 and 23 of the writ petition are not really disputed by the respondents. Thus the allegation in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the electronic video projector manufactured and sold by the petitioner are controlled and operated by microprocessor chips and microprocessors has not been specifically denied in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. All that has been said in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit is " that the contents of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition are incorrect, misconceived and hence denied." In our opinion such a bald denial is no denial at all according to the well settled law of pleadings. No doubt in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit reference has also been made to paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit but in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit there is no specific denial to the factual allegations in paragraphs 10, 15, 16, 18, 22 and 23 of the writ petition. All that has been said in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit is that the general entry of electronic goods cannot override the specific entry of cinematographic material including camera, projectors etc. Similarly the allegation in paragraphs 15, 16, 18 and 22 of the writ petition have not been specifically denied in paragraphs 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the counter affidavit. The averments in the above paragraphs of the counter affidavit merely make a reference to paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, which has already been dealt by us above. Thus in our opinion there is no specific denial to the factual averments in the writ petition that the electronic video projectors manufactured and sold by the petitioner are controlled and operated by microprocessor chips and microprocessor and they have been classified as electronic goods by the Department of Electronics, Government of India. They are electronic goods which are completely automatic and are operated by integrated circuits which consist of microprocessor chips alongwith electronic beams as stated in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1