Chennai Court April 1963 Judgments
Erode Yarn Stores Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC724(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. In suo motu revision proceedings under Section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the Board of Revenue called for and examined the original order of assessment made upon the petitioners and took the view that the assessing authority had failed to bring to tax the value of the packing materials which was included in the sales turnover of cotton yarn. It also thought that a certain part of the turnover of the cotton yarn had been wrongly exempted as second sales. In response to a notice issued by the Board of Revenue proposing to revise the assessment and to re-fix the turnover, the petitioners assessees objected on the ground that as an appeal had been filed before the Tribunal the Board was not competent to take proceedings under Section 34. Other objections to the assessability of the turnovers in question were also advanced. The Board held that the assessees had not filed an appeal to the Tribunal and that therefore the Board was not prevented from taking action...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ342
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. This is a petition by the State of Madras for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India from the judgment of this Court in Tax Case No. 162 of 1958. Leave is asked for under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. The respondent, the Madura Mills Co., Ltd., opposed the application, and raised a preliminary objection that the application is not main tenable under Article 133 or under Sections 109 and 110, Civil Procedure Code, as the proceedings which terminated in this Court in the order sought to be appealed from are not civil proceedings. This is the main question which has now been argued before us, and if we were to uphold the objection of the respondent, the application will have to be rejected in limine, without going into the question whether the case is a fit one for a necessary certificate under Article 133.2. We shall now briefly set out the facts which gave rise to Tax Case No. 162 of 1958, disposed of by us on 13th September, 1961. The Madura Mill...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vs. M. Seyed Cassim, and Others V. Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR473(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - These are petitions under section 226 of the Constitution praying that the records of the II-Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, may be called for and the orders made in G. I. No. 5105-S/52-53, dated July 26, 1961, and other connected proceedings quashed.It would be sufficient to set out the facts relevant to W. P. No. 966 of 1961. The petitioner herein was one of four partners of a firm called S. V. M. Mohammad Jalaluddin and Bros. This firm carried on business in Colombo for a long time. These partners are all brothers. On December 12, 1946, a company was incorporated in Celyon under the name S. V. M. Mohammad Jalauddin and Bros. (Ceylon) Ltd. The firm of which the four brothers were partners transferred all the assets and liabilities of the firm including the firm name to this company under a document dated August 4, 1947. Thereafter, the firm ceased to exist and the limited company continued the business. The four brothers apparently became directors of the company and w...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangaswami Nadar and Co., Seeniappa Oil Mills Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad487; [1963]14STC668(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee in this case are: dealers in groundnut oil and oil cake. The only turnover in dispute is a sum of Rs. 1,39,458. That the sales involved in this turnover were inter-State sales is not in dispute. The assessing authority however held that the C forms furnished by the assessee Under Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act were defective and accordingly brought this turnover to tax At 7 per cent instead of the concessional rate of tax of one per cent. An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed, as also a further appeal to the Tribunal.2. In order to understand the point in dispute, it is necessary to set out the details of the transactions leading to the sales. There were two transactions both of which were concerned with the supply of ground nut oil in Hindustan Lever Brothers at Calcutta. The first contract called for the supply of 200 candies of oil at Rs. 343 per candy. The assesses have three mil's each at Thiruvannamalai, Villirpuram and ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.D. Alaga Raja and M.D. Chandrasekara Raja Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC794(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The assessees are dealers in cotton and cotton seeds. The total turnover exceeded Rs. 14,00,000, and after deducting the purchase turnover, the net turnover was fixed at Rs. 4,35,822. There was no dispute with regard to this turnover. But the claim of the assessees was that a turnover of Rs. 2,40,470 brought to tax was the estimated purchase value of cotton sold in the course of inter-State trade. Under Rule 20 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules refund of tax was claimed. The assessing authority held that such a refund provided for therein was available only on the submission of certain returns within a prescribed period. Such returns not having been filed, the refund of tax claimed was refused.2. Against this order, an appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority accepted the conclusion reached by the assessing authority that since the conditions prescribed under the relevant rule had not been comp...
Tag this Judgment!ShirIn Bi Mohamadali Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC974(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. Ibrahim Saifuddin & Co., a firm of partnership, was assessed to sales tax for the years 1953 to 1956 in the sums of Rs. 2,000-19 nP., Rs. 3,287-78 nP., and Rs. 1,485 by orders dated 13th February, 1955, 6th July, 1955, and 28th March, 1957, respectively. The demands are said to have been served on one of the partners or erstwhile partners on 9th July, 1959, 28th March, 1957, and 6th April, 1957. The petitioner alleges that the firm was dissolved with effect from 2nd July, 1956, and that by a deed of settlement dated 1st October, 1956, executed by her husband she became the transferee of the goodwill of the business and the leasehold right in No. 5, Sembu-doss Street, G.T. Madras. She further alleges that without serving a ' demand on her the Revenue has taken proceedings against her under Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and sought to distrain her movables. Her contention is that the arrears of sales tax due from the erstwhile firm could...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Azeez and anr. Vs. M.K.P. Kader Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad428; (1963)2MLJ220
Ramamurti, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 3 of 1957, District Court, East Tanjore, are the appellants in the present appeal.2. One Pichai Gani Sahib died on 8-11-1955, leaving behind him defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff, his sons, the fourth defendant his widow and defendants 5 and 6 his daughters. During his life-time he was carrying on a business in rice mill, flour mill and oil press at Manjakollai and Nagapattinam for a number of years and when his sons grew up he associated them in his business and on 31-8-1950 he and his sons executed a registered document under which he constituted the aforesaid business as a partnership business.The terms and conditions of the partnership which are embodied in the partnership deed, amongst other things, provide that the partnership shall be deemed to have commenced from 1-4-1949, that it shall be carried on for a period of ten years from 1-4-1949 and that during the aforesaid period if a partner desires to retire from the partnership bu...
Tag this Judgment!T.V.S. Sarma Studio Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC784(Mad)
Venkatadri, J.1. These two tax appeals arise out of an order passed by the Board of Revenue holding that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax and fixing his taxable turnover for the years 1955-56 and 1957-58 at Rs. 10,410 and Rs. 20,050 respectively.2. The assessee owns a studio by name T. V. S. Sarma Studio. He describes himself as a commercial Artistist. He receives orders from film producers and distributors and prepares designs for advertisement purposes. He uses his skill and energy and produces a sketch as per the directions of his customers. After finishing the work he hands over the papers on which designs are drawn to his customers who in their turn get them printed and use them as cinema posters for their business. He has nothing to do with the preparation of the blocks from and out of the designs prepared by him or the printing of the designs. He also paints photos with suitable colours and gives colouring touches to the slides given to him by his customers.3. The Assista...
Tag this Judgment!T.M.L. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC839(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in ghee, butter and oil at Kangayam, Coimbatore District. He was assessed to sales tax for the year 1954-55 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dharapuram, on 13th March, 1956. He claimed exemption for an amount of Rs. 3,67,427-5-0 representing that it was in respect of certain inter- State sales. This claim was upheld by the officer. The Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore (South), Erode, called for the records of assessment suo motu and examined the correctness and propriety of the exemption granted by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for the alleged inter-State sales. He refixed the net turnover of the dealer; but he subunstantially agreed with the assessment order of the 1st officer. He disallowed the exemption in respect of an item of sale amounting to Rs. 18-4-0, and thereby enhanced the tax by 30 nP. The order of the Commercial Tax Officer is dated 14th December, 1957. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer gave effect to this order, and m...
Tag this Judgment!Mailappa Chettiar Vs. Sivagami Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ242
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Mailappa Chettiar seeks to revise' the order of the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, dismissing his petition to cancel the order for maintenance made against him in M. C. No. 38 of 1959 on hit file in so far as it relates to the respondent' The respondent got maintenance for herself and her daughter lit M. C. No. 38 of 1959 on the file of the District Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner neglected and refused to maintain her. In the said proceedings, she also proved that she was treated cruelly. Subsequently, the petitioner filed 0. P. No. 4 of 1960 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivaganga, Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve his marriage with the respondent. The Subordinate Judge did not grant a decree for divorce but granted a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the respondent deserted the petitioner for a period of not less than two years prior to the petition. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the present pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »