Chennai Court April 1963 Judgments
Vasantha and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC696(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in sugar and arecanut. It returned a net turnover of Rs. 52,094 for the assessment year 1958-59. Exemption under the head of 'inter-State sales' to the extent of Rs. 21,616 was refused by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer. In respect of sales of sugar candy, it was taxed on a turnover of Rs. 83,901 which was the estimated sale value of the total quantity of sugar purchased by it inclusive of the quantity, also estimated as having been omitted from the accounts. Its appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the contention was advanced that the sale of sugar was totally exempt from tax during the year of assessment and that this exemption accorded to sugar must necessarily extend to sugar candy in which the assessee dealt. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon a notification issued by the Government and it was claimed that sugar candy is essentially nothing more than sugar, the on...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1963
Reported in: 1963CriLJ464
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Public Prosecutor has preferred this revision against the order of the Sub Magistrate City III, Coimbatore, overruling his preliminary objection that the Sub Magistrate as committing Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry or pass an order as to disposal of property under S. 517 Crl. P. C. Under Section 517 (1) Crl. P. C. it is for the Sessions Court to pass orders for the disposal (by destruction confiscation, or delivery) of any property or document produced before it or in its custody in all cases Where the trial of the sessions case is concluded. The Sessions Court has no doubt powers to pass orders under Sec. 517 (2) and Section 518 Crl. P. C. to direct a District or Sub Divisional Magistrate to deliver the property. But they are not intended to be used in ordinary cases. In fact there was no such order in this case. Under Section 207-A (14) Crl. P. C, where the accused is committed for trial the committing magistrate shall send the record of the enq...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliammal and ors. Vs. Muthu Pillai Alias
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1966Mad118
Venkataraman, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit (O.S. No. 99 of 1955) filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The plaintiff in the suit (Vellaichami Pillai) is the appellant before us. The suit was brought for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The actual contest is between the plaintiff on the one hand and the 3rd defendant on the other. The 3rd defendant's claim of title arises thus: defendants 4 and 5 (Somasundaram Pillai and Chokku Pillai) were adjudicated insolvents in I.P. No. 5 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and their estate vested in the Official Receiver. On the footing that the suit properties belonged to defendants 4 and 5, the Official Receiver put up for sale the lease-hold right in them for a period of one year, and the auction purchaser was the 2nd defendant. Later, the interest of the inso...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kandiah thevar Vs. Third Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad305; [1963]49ITR665(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the, Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, to grant a certified copy of a statement made by the second respondent, an assessee of the Income-tax department, in the course of his assessment proceedings.2. The second respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 130 of 1961, District Munsifs court, Shencottah, against the petitioner claiming ownership of a certain property. In the course of the assessment proceedings of the second respondent, certain statements were made both by the petitioner and the second respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that the second respondent in those income-tax proceedings admitted that the property does not belong. to him. In these proceedings the petitioner was also examined wherein he set up his title to the property. The petitioner claimed that the statement made by the second respondent was necessary for being marked in evidence in the trial of the suit a...
Tag this Judgment!Meenambika Company Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC817(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. A lorry carrying 115 bags of toor dhall was stopped on the outskirts of Coimbatore by the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. The driver of the lorry though he had the necessary trip sheets did not have the bill of sale or delivery note. The driver however stated that the goods belonged to the consignee of a railway consignment and that he was carrying the goods to the premises of the consignee. The driver was also able to furnish the particulars of the consignor and consignee and to explain how he came to be transporting the goods. He was also possessed of a letter authorising the consignee's representatives Meenambika & Co., to pay the charges for the conveyance. The Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, who checked this consignment, immediately proceeded to issue a notice in Form No. 53 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. This notice called upon the driver of the lorry to pay in lieu of confiscation of the goods, a sum of Rs. 276. The notice did n...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Presidency Motors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC706(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The respondents are dealers in motor spare parts. As against the gross turnover of Rs. 4,28,000 and odd returned by them, the dealers claimed a sum of Rs. 1,21,506 as representing second sales of auto spare parts. Since auto spare parts are taxable at the stage of first sale only, this turnover was exempt from tax. But the Joint Commercial Tax Officer found that the respondents had charged tax at 6 per cent. on the sale value of the goods covered by this turnover. In the view that the respondents had collected sales tax on the transactions of sales effected by them, the assessing authority held that the amount of tax so collected was recoverable from the respondents under-Section 8-B(2) of the Act. Objection was taken to this demand. The respondents contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the sales in question were not liable to be taxed at all and that the levy of tax on these goods at the stage of second sale is opposed to law. They claimed further...
Tag this Judgment!K. Paramasivam Pillai Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC972(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. It appears that, for the use and benefit of the gazetted and non-gazetted officers of the Tirunelveli Collectorate and by a resolution of the Collectorate Recreation Club, a canteen called the 'Collectorate Canteen' was opened sometime in November, 1955. In respect of the transactions of tiffin etc., to the members of the canteen, the canteen, represented by its honorary secretaries, was assessed to sales tax under the Madras Greneral Sales Tax Act, 1939, for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58. For arrears of tax, steps were taken to realise the same from the petitioner personally under Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Aggrieved by these proceedings the petitioner, eventually, moved the Board of Revenue unsuccessfully. He has, therefore, come up to this Court, asking to quash the Board's order, which merely stated that it saw no reason to interfere on behalf of the petitioner.2. It seems to me that the validity of the assessment orders them se...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Kempai Gowder and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Agricultural Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ51
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The petitioners filed applications before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund, under Section 65 of the Act for composition of the tax on their agricultural income and levy of the appropriate fee in lieu of regular assessment to tax. These applications were rejected by the Officer and the petitioners preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras. These revision petitions also were dismissed as the Commissioner agreed with the View taken by the Subordinate Officer. In this batch of revision petitions the petitioners urge the contention that they are entitled to the benefit of composition under the Act and that the competent authorities failed to exercise their statutory jurisdiction property.2. These petitions can be dealt with and disposed of together as they raise a common question of law.3. A block of property consis...
Tag this Judgment!H. N. Kempai Gowder and Another Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR31(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - These revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The petitions filed applications before the Agricultural Income-tax officer, Ooatacamund, under section 65 of the Act for composition of the tax on their agricultural income and levy of the appropriate fee in lieu of regular assessment to tax. These applications were rejected by the officer and the petitioners preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras. These revision petitions also were dismissed as the Commissioner agreed with the view taken by the subordinate officer. In this batch of revision petitions the petitions urge the contention that they are entitled to the benefit of composition under the Act and that the competent authorities failed to exercise their statutory jurisdiction properly.These petitions can be dealt with and disposed of together as they raise a common question of law.A block of property consisting of tea pla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›