Chennai Court December 1961 Judgments
K. Mohamed Elias and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad42; [1962]13STC425(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessments in these three cases relate to the assessment year 1957-58. Though the petitioners are different, certain common questions arise.2. In T. C. No. 171 of 1960, the assessee was assessed to central sales tax on a total turnover of Rs. 4,28,735 of which Rs. 2,45,162 was taxed under Section 8(2) of the Act at two per cent on the turnover. In T. C. No. 172 of 1960, Rs. 1,62,705 was brought to tax at two per cent out of the total turnover of Rs. 2,03,281. In T. C. No. 173 of 1960, Rs. 34,369 was taxed at two per cent out of the total turnover of Rs. 76,879. The other parts of the turnovers in each of these cases was taxed at one per cent under Section 8(1) of the Act. All the petitioners are dealers in hides and skins.3. In all of these cases, Mr. Karim, for the petitioners, advances the argument that the tax itself has not become exigible under the Central Sales tax Act by reason of the following circumstances. Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act which imp...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Abbas and Co., Madras Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad457; [1962]13STC433(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. (1) The assessee is a dealer in hides and skins and the assessment is in respect of the assessment year 1957-58 under the Central Sales Tax Act: The department brought to tax a turnover of Rs. 4,36,526 at one per cent under Sec. 8(1) of the Act and a turnover of Rs. 1,15,928 at two per cent under Sec. 8(2) of the Act. The petitioners objected to the levy under the Central Sales Tax Act contending that the relevant provisions of that Act had not been brought into force by a proper and valid notification and that the levy of tax at two per cent under S. 8(2) of the Act is illegal being discriminatory. These contentions failed before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal and the same contentions are now pressed before us.(2) Originally the petitioners appear to have claimed that they were only agents in putting through the sale transactions, and, that, therefore, no inter-State sales were involved. This contention was examined and found to be not established and that contention ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohamed Elias and Co. and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ327
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessments in these three cases relate to the assessment year 1957-58. Though the petitioners are different, certain common questions arise.2. In T.C. No. 171 of 1960, the assessee was assessed to Central sales tax on a total turnover of Rs. 4,28,735 of which Rs. 2,45,162 was taxed under Section 8(2) of the Act at two per cent. on the turnover. In T.C. No. 172 of 1960, Rs. 1,62,705 was brought to tax at two per cent. out of the total turnover of Rs. 2,03,281. In T.C. No. 173 of 1960, Rs. 34,369, was taxed at two per cent. out of the total turnover of Rs. 76,879. The other parts of the turnovers in each of these cases was taxed at one per cent. under Section 8(1) of the Act. All the petitioners are dealers in hides and skins.3. In all of these cases, Mr. Karim, for the petitioners, advances the argument that the tax itself has not become exigible under the Central Sales Tax Act by reason of the following circumstances. Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act which i...
Tag this Judgment!Gobald Motor Service Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR734(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question referred to us is :'Whether the orders under Section 23A for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1949-50 are valid ?'The assessee is a private limited company engaged in transport business. During the account years ending with 31st March, 1947, and 31st March, 1949, the relevant assessment years being 1947-48 and 1949-50, there were only two shareholders who were also the directors. It is common ground that this is a company in which the public were not substantially interested and that section 23A is applicable to it. The Income-tax Officer found that the dividends declared by the company during the two years were below 60 per cent. of the assessable income less taxes paid. He was of the view that, having regard to the profits made, the company could have declared a larger dividend. He accordingly, proceeded to make an order under section 23A which resulted in the whole of the assessable income less taxes being deemed to have been distributed among the two sh...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Vs. Manohat Brothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad410; [1962]13STC686(Mad)
Jagadisan, J. (1) The petitioner is a firm of dealers carrying oil business in 'pump sets' machinery at Madras. They were assessed by the joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour I, on the net turnover of Rs. 1,02,377, under the Central Sales Tax Act, for the year 1959-60. Of this turnover, Rs. 62,342 held liable to tax at the rate of 1 per cent. and Rs. 40,035 to tax at the rate of seven per cent. They preferred in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial taxes, Madras, claiming that of the turnover of Rs. 40,035, Rs. 34,215 should be taxed only at the rate of one per cent. The joint Commercial tax Officer had levied the tax at the rate of seven per cent as the petitioner did not file the original form 'C' as required by the Act, and the rules framed thereunder in respect of a few transactions, and as the C forms filled in respect of a few transactions were net duly and properly filled up. The petitioner produced certain letters before the Appellate authority alle...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Corporation of Madras Vs. Godrej Soaps Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ338
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. These connected Civil Revision Petitions which relate to the assessment to tax by the Corporation of Madras against the respondent company for six half years raise a common question as to the rate of tax payable. Godrej Soaps (Private) Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act whose Head or Principal office is not in the city of Madras. There is, however, a Branch office of the company at Madras. In respect of the business done in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala State all monies come to the Madras office and then they are transmitted to the Head office at Bombay. In the matter of levy of tax on companies, the Corporation of Madras sought to levy the tax on the gross income received by the Madras Branch including therein income derived from the business done in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala State which passed through the Madras Branch office. Reversing the view taken by the Taxation Appeals Committee of the Corporation, the Chief Judge of the Court of...
Tag this Judgment!R. Srinivasalu Chetty Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Accom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ333
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises No. 17-B, Broadway, Madras, which is said to belong to one Singam Chetty, Attendrooloo Chetty's charities. He got an order of eviction against his sub-tenant one Srinivasalu Naidu on 10th April, 1957, who pursuant thereto, surrendered possession to him of the portion in his occupation on 13th October, 1958. The petitioner failed to notify the vacancy in the first instance as required by Section 3(1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, but occupied the portion covered by the earlier sub-tenancy. The Accommodation Controller by his order, dated 22nd January, 1959, called upon the petitioner to notify the vacancy, which he complied with on 31st January, 1959. The intimation of vacancy was received by the Accommodation Controller on 2nd February, 1959. On 26th March, 1959, the petitioner was asked to show why he should not be prosecuted for contravention of Section 3(1) A prosecution followed which end...
Tag this Judgment!Sakuntala Ammal and ors. Vs. Kadiresa Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ388
Jagadisan, J.1. The respondent in these Revision Petitions is one Kadiresa Padayachi. He is a tenant holding three items of wet lands, S. No. 50/1 of an extent of 72 cents, R. S. No. 48 of an extent of 2 acres, 48 cents, R.S. No. 54/49 of an extent of 27 cents under three different landowners in the village of Mangalam, Papanasam taluk, Tanjore district. These landowners arc the petitioners in these petitions. The respondent claimed to be a ' cultivating tenant' entitled to the benefits of Madras Act XXIV of 1956. He filed three applications for fixation of fair rent under Section 9 of that Act. He was admittedly cultivating the lands under what is called ' waram' tenure by which the produce is shared in certain proportion between the landowner and the cultivator. Previous to the filing of these three applications there were disputes between the petitioners and the respondents regarding the rent payable, and it is common ground that the parties entered into an agreement filed before th...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Vs. Sri Swami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC468(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The respondent is a firm of dealers in hides and skins at Madras. They were assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, No. 3 Moore Market, to their turnover for the year 1955-56 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The order of assessment was passed on 15th December, 1956. Their assessable turnover was determined at Rs. 11,47,315-14-7. They filed an appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer on 15th February, 1957. During the pendency of the appeal, Madras Act I of 1959 came into operation on 1st April, 1959. The appeal was transferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed appellate authority under the new enactment. By order of the appellate authority the assessee's turnover was reduced to Rs. 6,22,693-13-11. They preferred a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal disputing a turnover of Rs. 80,744. This turnover related to sales effected by them through Messrs Beardsell and Co. and they claimed that these sales were in the course of...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Kassam and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC907(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The assessees are dealers in cloth. Before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the levy of tax on a turnover of Rs. 2,92,761 was disputed. The dealers had imported cloth from outside the State and had sold the goods ; they were sought to be taxed under Section 3(2) of the Act as the first sellers and the additional levy of 8 per cent, was made. They contended that they were not the first sellers, but no evidence to establish that fact, the onus of proving which is laid upon the dealer by the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act, was let in. Another part of the turnover of Rs. 61,782 was also in dispute. That part related to the stock of imported cloth held as on 13th December, 1957, in respect of which the dealers were given the option of compounding the additional tax. No applications for compounding had been made in conformity with the law. The request to compound was accordingly negatived and they were taxed as stated.2. In the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »