Chennai Court March 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.
Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., Pasumalai, Madurai Vs. State of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad937; (1954)IIMLJ314
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The assessee is the owner of a mill at Pasumalai in Madurai district. Under the Cotton Textiles (Export Control) Order, 1949, every mill which manufactures yarn or cloth is obliged to allocate a portion of the yarn or cloth produced for export outside the Indian Union.2. The assesses was taxed on a sum of Rs. 12,55,350 as representing the turnover of the sales of yarn, which he effected to an exporter. This yarn was admittedly the yarn which he was obliged to retain and sell for export under the Cotton Textiles (Export Control) Order, 1949. Instead of himself selling for export, the assesses sold it to another and that another exported the goods outside India. The assessee had no export licence.In view of these facts, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not within the exemption in Article 285, Sub-section (1)(b) of the Constitution. The correctness of this is the first point which is raised on behalf of the assessee by Mr. Kuppuswami learned counsel for the ...
D. Ramaswami, Proprietor, the Court Press, Job Branch, Salem Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad980
Rajagopalan, J.1. Though the assessee was taxed on the same baste for three years, this petition is only with reference to the assessment of one year, 1950-51. The assesses was described as a job printer, and during the assessment year 1950-51 he was assessed to a total turnover of Rs. 19,921-7-6. This was made up of three items :(1) Receipt for Civil Court work .. Rs. 3,664-4-3 and binding(2) Printing, perforating, numbering and binding charges. .. 10,194-3-6(3) Paper used by the Press. .. 5,362-15-9The contention of the assessee was that it was only the third item that constituted sales liable to sales-tax; but in this case, as that turnover was less than the taxable turnover of Rs. 10,000, that item was exempted from sales-tax. With reference to items 1 and 2, the contention of the assesses was that they did not amount to works contracts even as defined by the Sale-tax Act, but that they represent only the labour charges. Quite Obviously that contention would apply to the second ite...
In Re: Rangalal Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1168; 1955CriLJ99
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is a petition to revise viction by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, mallee, in Summary Trial No. 91 of 1952 file. The petitioners are two of the part the firm of G. T. R. Company. The fl(sic) sists of three partners as is clear from deuce of P. W. 2 who says that one Thir-karusu, one of the partners, has left the the prosecution is under Section 15(h) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for wilfully in contravention of Section 13 of the Act. Und of the Act every registered dealer and ev(sic) son licensed under this Act shall keep an tain a true and correct account. The case the accounts that were seized by P. W. 1 (sic) 1950 when he went to the premises and (sic) it are not true accounts maintained by (sic)2. Objection is taken by Mr. Sundaramprosecution of these two persons on thethat it is the firm that should be prosecunot two of the partners alone. It is out in -- 'Public Prosecutor v. K. Jacob : AIR1951Mad886 (1) (A) which was follme in -- 'In re, Behar...
S.N. Namasivayan Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad879
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. These two applications are for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution. Tile dispute related to the payment of income-tax and excess profits tax. There is no dispute regarding the amount, as the assessments have become final.The petitioner claimed that, under the proviso to Section 45 of the Income-tax Act as there was a restriction by the law obtaining in Ceylon under which he was not allowed to remit his foreign income into the taxable territory during the rele-vant period, he should not be treated as defaulter. His contention was that the Income-tax Department had no jurisdiction to treat him as a defaulter.It was admitted before us that the restriction imposed by the Government of Ceylon was not absolute, but that remittances could be made if a proper case was made out for such remittances. It was found by us in the order against which these applications for leave have been filed, that the petitioner did not take any real ...
Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad932; (1954)IIMLJ326
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The assessee. Messrs. Louis Dreyfus & Company Ltd., was assessed to sales-tax for the assessment year, 1948-49, including in its turnover a sum of Rs. 5,53,746-5-6 which represents the value of Niger seeds shipped by the assessee to places outside the territory of Indian Union in pursuance of contracts entered into by their London office.2. The assessment was based upon explanation 2 to Section 2(h) of the Sales-tax Act, which was added by the Madras General Sales-tax (Amending) Act, 1947 (Act 25 of 1947). The basis on which the tax was levied under this explanation was that the goods were actually in this State at the time of the contracts of sale. If the assessment had to be made after the Constitution came into force, probably the assessec would have been exempt from the payment of the tax under Article 286 of the Constitution. But, as the assessment year was before that date, the Department & the Tribunal upheld the assessment under the new explanation, expl...
Murugan and Co., Tuticorin, by Partner Sudalaimuthu Pillai Vs. State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1090; (1954)IIMLJ682
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The relevant assessment year in this case is 1949-50, and the turnover in dispute is Rs. 1,95,212-3-2 relating to export of onions before 26th January 1951. 2. Here also the assessment was justified underthe explanation 2 to Section 2 (h) introduced by theAmending Act of 1947. The learned counsel, whileadopting the arguments, which were addressedby the petitioner's advocate, in -- 'Louis Dreyfus& Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras', : AIR1954Mad932 (A) in which we have just now delivered judgment, raised an additional point, that the tax inquestion was really an export duty in Entry 44 ofList No. 1 of the Government of India Act of1935, i.e., customs, including export duties, andtherefore the levy was not justified. As regardsthe other arguments, the decision, just pronouncedin -- ' : AIR1954Mad932 (A) governs this casealso. The additional argument does not require serious consideration. The sales-tax is a tax on transactions of sale. It is in no sense a tax on goods ...
State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1117; (1954)IIMLJ548
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The assessment relates to the year 1949-50. The assessee is a dealer in groundnuts. On and after 26-1-1950 and before export on 31-1-1950, they purchased a quantity of 374 bags of groundnut for a sum of Rs. 21,355-2-0. The assessee claimed that this amount should be deducted from his turnover as it was not assessable to tax. The exemption was claimed under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Appellate. Tribunal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in -- 'State of Tra-vancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co.,Ltd., Alleppey', AIR 1952 SC 306 (A) allowed the exemption on the ground that the 'sale for export involves a series of integrated activities commencing from the agreement of sale with the foreign buyer and ending with the delivery of the goods to a common carrier, for transport out of the country by land or sea.' On this reasoning, they held that the purchase of groundnut after 26-1-1950, was necessarily in a chain of such integrated activities which was...
In Re: Ramayya thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad940
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an application for refund of the sale proceeds of the guns sold by the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram at Madhurai.2. The facts are: There were originally four accused who were charged with offences under the Indian Arms Act. Accused 1 and 2 were charged under Section 19 of the Arms Act of having been in possession of guns without licence and accused 3 and 4, the petitioners before us, who were licensee of the guns were charged under Sections 21 and 22 of the Arms Act with having supplied guns to accused 1 and 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Srivilliputtur found all the accused guilty as charged and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. In addition, the two guns were forfeited to Government.On appeal the sentences and convictions of accused 1 and 2 were confirmed while those against accused 3 and 4 were set aside on the ground that there was no acceptable proof of the delivery of guns by them to accused 1 and 2. The appellate court did not pa...
B.M. Amina Umma Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1120; [1954]26ITR137(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of writs of prohibition directing the Income-tax Officer to desist from continuing the assessment proceedings against the petitioner under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54.2. The petitioner is the widow of Haji K. M. Ahmed Kutty. He had a 12 annas share in the partnership which consisted of himself and one Abdulla. Ahmed Kutty died on 5-7-1950. His heirs were his two wives, three minor children by the first wife (the petitioner) and two minor children by the second wife. The partnership was reconstituted on 25-12-1950 with three partners, the petitioner, Abdulla and Khader Kutti, a brother of the petitioner. The three minor children of the petitioner were admitted to the benefits of that partnership with a total of 8 annas share between them. The petitioner was entitled to a four annas share. This partnership also was registered under Section 26-A, Income-tax Act.Afte...
In Re: K.T. Cherian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad959; (1954)IIMLJ228
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The only point In this case is whether the petitioner was only a broker in the tea transactions in respect of which he received certain commission. The petitioner Is the proprietor of the Malabar Trading Corporation, Calicut. This corporation was acting as selling agents in respect of rubber, tea and cashewnuts on behalf of Coffee Plantations Ltd., Tamaranneri Rubber Co., Ltd., Milambur and Amalgamated Malabar Estates, Tamaranneri. In the invoices made out for tea, the corporation was charging 2 1/2 per cent. commission from the estates for whom they sold tea. The petitioner was not keeping an account of the orders booked but kept only an account of the commission received.The case of the prosecution is that he was not merely a broker but was really a dealer within the definition of that term in the Madras Sales-tax Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, in his order on the appeal petition dated 2-3-1945 which is, Ex. D. 1, in the case, finds that the firm has absolut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »