Indiramma Houses In Agency Areas Challenged

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka from the TaLangana Supreme Court tried to prevent the state government from implementing the state government in the planned (fifth program) area without including legal measures compulsory under the laws of tribal and agency. The judge was engaged in a writing by Adivasi Sena and Madi Saibabu. The petitions have challenged the housing plan aimed at building and continuing to build houses in individual areas under the leadership leadership of the TaLangana Housing Corporation Limited and other officials through various government orders and circulars. According to the petitions, the decision to inform and implement the plan in tribal dominant areas without being bound to legal measures is a violation of the land transfer arrangements of the planned areas and the provisions of Panchayats (expanding to planned areas). Gram sabhas and tribal land rights. Although the petitions submitted more than one representation, the authorities claimed that the identification of the beneficiaries and that they have started to implement the Discount Plan in the fifth program areas without complying with these compulsory legal requirements. Such actions weaken constitutional guards for planned tribes and dilute the legislative intention behind the protective land regulations on the agency roads. The government asked for time to beg for instructions.

Football coach was enlarged on bail in the drug case

On Monday, the Supreme Court of TaLangana gave bail to a football coach accused in a narcotic case containing 800 grams of cocaine and efedrin. Judge Kodigollu felt a petition of crime opened by Appna. According to the prosecutor’s Office, during a raid in June, the police seized a mixture of 820 grams of drugs from two homosexuals who claimed that the petition had previously demanded 500 grams of efedrin and that it had taken the item about 20 days ago from RAID. However, no fugitive was saved from the petition. The Petiitoner lawyer claimed that the only material against the petition was the confession of a common accusation without evidence value. The consultant pointed out that the petition has been in custody since August and that several common defendants have been given guarantee. No substance from the petition was seized and most of the investigation was completed, the judge gave a conditional bail to the petition.

HC: Natural Gas Fossil Fuel

The “Tax Counter” of the Supreme Court of TaLangana, which is mainly a methane of carbon and hydrogen, was an easy -to -look fossil fuel that resembles coal and petroleum in accordance with the APGST Law of 1957, and Rao Nantikonda Panel and Hra Nantikonda rejected the three special occupied cases. Revision petitions required different tax incidents contrary to the orders of the Sales Tax Court under different entrances. The petition owner participated in the natural gas trade business. The petition owner purchased natural gas from Limited (Gail), the first seller, Indian gas authority. After buying natural gas from Gail, the petition sold to other legal entities. In the current case, the petition owner sold the natural gas he bought to his sister RVK Energy Private Limited. The petition claimed that the tax point of natural gas on tax is at the first sales point under the guarantee of industrial gas. According to the petition, since it was an industrial gas at the entrance of the 1st program of the APGST Law dated 1957, the tax tax was at the first sales point in the first case where the sale was made by Gail. The petition owner said that the petition cannot be subject to tax tax on the sale of natural gas. The evaluation authority within the scope of the APGST Law dated 1957 argued that the gas purchased by Gail’s petition was classified at the 23rd entrance of the 6th program. According to government officials, the sale of goods in accordance with the 23rd entry of the 6th program can be removed from the tax at every point of sale in the state. For this reason, the sale of natural gas to other companies by the petition is also suitable for paying the tax in accordance with the 1957 APGST Law. Disputes for the panel, Justice P. Sam Kosy, referred to various statements and stated that there is a certain exclusion of the oil gases specified in industrial gas and that such oil gases can be recorded and 1 can be done, as it can be entered, as it can enter 1, as it can enter 1, as it can enter 1. The panel added: “Reading the 23rd entrance of the 6th program shows that the goods entering under the entrance are compressed, liquefied or solidified or solidified or other than industrial gases.”