Chennai Court January 1954 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad891; (1954)IMLJ548
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The assessee claimed relief to the extent of Rs. 19,93,937-9-6. This was the amount included in the returns submitted in Form A-9, but the Commercial Tax Officer declined to consider the claim on the ground that all the particulars required in Form A-9 had not been furnislied. On appeal, the Tribunal pointed out that under sub-rule 3-A of Rule 18, the Commercial Tax Officer had ample jurisdiction to condone the delay in the submission of the Form or to condone the failure to furnish any of the particulars in that Form, and after pointing out that the accounts had been maintained correctly and that the quantities of oil could always be gathered with accuracy from the information furnished by the assessee, directed the Commercial Tax Officer to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of turnover under Turnover and Assessment Rule 18, for the months of April 1950 to January 1951. It is against this order that the Government has preferred this revision.2. It was not ...
R. Ramiah Mooppanar Vs. Govt. of Madras, Through the Deputy Commr. of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad939
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer passed his first order of assessment in 1949 & then revised it on 10-3-1950, because he was of the view that some turnover had escaoed assessment when it was first made. Against that order dated 10-3-1950 the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commercial tax Officer, who dismissed that appeal on 10-5-1951, confirming the revised order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The amending Act of 1951, which gave a right of appeal to the Tribunal under Section 12-A came into force on 15-5-1951. On 10-5-1951, when the Commercial Tax Officer passed tne order on appeai, there was no rignt of appeal to the Tribunal. Subsequent to 15-0-1951, the assessee preferred a revision petition to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 27-6-1951, and it was only the Deputy Commissioner that could dispose of that petition in revision. It could not be treated as an appeal and transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency oi the applic...
Khajana Lakshmana Rao Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad942; (1954)IIMLJ308
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, to refer the question of compensation payable to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act to the Court under Section 18(2) of the said Act.2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass, and may be briefly set out. The petitioner is the managing member of a joint Hindu family owning among others land bearing S. No, 129 in the village of Muppaduvetti in Wallajah Taluk, in the North Arcot District. This land was the subject of notification for the purpose of acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government took possession of the property. The petitioner claimed Rs. 30 per cent, for the lands and also additional compensation for a well on the property as well as for loss of certain privileges. The members of the joint family represented by the petitioner gave him letters of authority to represent them and also autho...
K.P. Vaidyanatha Iyer Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad828; (1954)IMLJ526
1. This petition is by the assessee to revise the order of the Appellate Tribunal with reference to the assessment under the General Sales tax Act for the assessment year 1949-50. It was common ground that the assesses grew sugarcane in his fields, converted the juice into jaggery and sold the jaggery for Rs. 20,536-14-0 during the course of the year; and it was on the turnover on the sales of jaggery effected during the course of the year that he was assessed. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contentions of the assessee, (1), that he was not a dealer as defined by the Act and (2) that the sales of jaggery would be sales of agricultural produce within the meaning of the definition of "turnover" in Section 2(i) of the Act.2. "Dealer" is defined as a "person who carries on the business of selling goods". What the assessee did in this particular instance was to organise the sale of jaggery, first by converting agricultural produce into the marketable commodity of jaggery, and then by s...
ijjana Bhogayya and ors. Vs. Arthamur Devaravada Parapathi Sangam Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad935; (1954)IIMLJ279
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The scops and extent of the bar of suits and other legal proceedings under Section 48 of the Madras Cc-oparative Societies Act 6 of 1932 arises for determination in this appeal.The plaintiff-appellant bid certain properties put up for sale by a Co-operative Society known as the Arthamur Devaravada Parapathi Sangham Ltd, Arthamur. He also made an initial deposit of over one-fourth of the bid and paid also the balance. The second defendant, to whom some of the properties belonged and who was a defaulter, was given back two of the items of properties on his paying the arrears of dues. The appellant instituted the present suit for specific performance of a contract of sale by virtue of his having bid at the sale in auction held on 19-7-1942 when he made the bid and made the initial payment. Specific performance was refused by the trial court.Alter the termination of the suit and before the filing of the appeal, the first defendant-Society was wound up, and a liqui...
N.M. Rayaloo Iyer and Sons, Mathurai Vs. Commr. of Income Tax Excess P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad56; [1954]26ITR265(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These two Referred Cases relate to the same assessee. R. C. No. 44 of 1953 relates to income-tax, and R. C. No. 53 of 1952 relates to Excess Profits Tax. Questions 2 and 3 are common in the two Referred Cases, and Question 1 In R. C. No. 44 of 1953 is :'Whether in allowing a deduction under Section 10 (2)(xv). Income Tax Act, the Income-tax Officer is precluded from going into the question whether the amount was paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business.'Question 1 in the connected Reference is, Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that in accordance with the terms of the letter dated 17-4-1940 and 30-3-1943 and the conduct of parties, the Excess Profits Tax payable by the assessee should be deducted from the profits before the commission of 121/2 per cent, payable to N. M. R. V. Mahadevan Is calculated.'Question 2 is,'Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the commission payment to N. M. R....
Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, Madras Vs. C.M. Sw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad782; (1954)IIMLJ338
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee was assessed to general sales tax for the assessment year 1948-49 on a turnover of Rs. 3,56,525-9-3. The order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who was the assessing officer, was dated 15-6-1949 and a copy of it was server on the aasessee on 20-6-1949. Under the Sales Tax Act before it was amended in 1951, the assessee had the right to prefer an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer within thirty days from too date of the service of the assessment order on the assesses. The assessee, however, filed the appeal on 12-8-1949. There was no power then to condone any delay.The Commercial Tax Officer rejected the appeal as barred by time, and that order was dated 19-8-1949. Thereupon the assessee preferred a revision petition to the Board of Revenue, because before the amendment of the Act in 1951, there was no right of appeal against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. It was the amending Act of 1951 that enacted the present Section 12-A, constituting t...
Eranki Narasimham Vs. Penumutchu Atchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad739
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent against the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri J. dismissing S. A. No. 1729 of 1947. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of possession of certain property from the respondent. The main defence of the respondent was that the suit property was situated in a Dharmila inam and therefore he had rights of occupancy. The ground on which the appellant sought to eject the respondent was that the respondent was in occupation under a lease for ten years dated 18-2-1935, under which he was liable to pay a rent of Rs. 120 per year but that he had committed default in payment of rent and in accordance with the provision in the lease the appellant had become entitled to recover possession of the land, that is to say, that the respondent had lost his rights by forfeiture.The appellant alleged that before suit he had issued a registered notice to the respondent intimating that he had forfeited his rig...
P.V. Bheemasena Rao and anr. Vs. Sirgiri Peda Yella Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad795; (1954)IMLJ384
1. This second appeal has been referred to a Bench by Subba Rao J. for a decision about the proper construction of Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 2 of 1927.2. The property in dispute was among those originally granted in mam to the ancestors of the predecessors in interest of the respondents for the performance of Parak service in the pagodas of the village of Panyam in Nandyal taluk of the Kurnool district. The service is described in column 8 of the Inam Fair Register as follows:'Granted for attending the procession in the Pagoda with silver sticks, going before the idols and crying aloud at certain intervals.'The total extent of the lands covered by the grants and title deeds is over 115 acres of dry, wet and garden lands and is covered by two title deeds. The conditions of the grant as set out both in the Inam Fair Register as well as in the title deeds make it clear that the grant was to enure 'so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled.'...
State of Madras Vs. Sayed Abdurahiman Baffakki Thangal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad926; (1954)IIMLJ236
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The State of Madras who is the petitioner in this revision petition is the second defendant in the suit filed for recovery of certain transport charges stated to have been incurred by the plaintiff-respondent before me in the course of his activities as a wholesale dealer in food-grains in Kotayam taluk and which extra expenses, he alleged was undertaken in pursuance of a contract with the Government.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application calling upon the Government to produce certain documents. They were produced and when at the time of trial the plaintiff sought to exhibit them, the Government raised an objection to their being exhibited claiming privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act.3. The documents in respect of which privilege was claimed by the Collector of South Malabar who originally filed an affidavit in support, of this claim fail under two groups: (1) office notes maintained in the office of the Collector, (2) internal o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »