Chennai Court June 1964 Judgments
S. Mohammad Samiulla Sahib and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC920(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. In Noor Mohamed & Co. v. State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 792, it was held by this Court that in respect of turnover in hides and skins, unlicensed dealers were not assessable to sales tax. For the assessment year 1954-55 the assessees were given exemption on their turnover in hides and skins and subjected to an assessment on a small turnover of Rs. 10,000/- and odd which dealt with other items of goods. But the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Noor Mohamed & Co. [1960] 11 S.T.C. 570 overruled the decision of this Court in Noor Mohamed & Co. v. State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 792 and held that unlicensed dealers in hides and skins were also liable to pay sales tax. Relying on this decision the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer suo motu took steps for revising the assessment and assessed the petitioners' sales in hides and skins. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners presses his claim only in regard to a turnover of Rs. 39,000/- and odd in resp...
Tag this Judgment!A.L. Parthasarathi Mudaliar Vs. Venkata Kondiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad188
Venkatadri, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the first defendant against the judgment of Ramakrishnan J. modifying the decree of the trial judge and directing the first defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of item 1 of the plaint schedule properties on receipt of Rs. 4750 in pursuance of the agreement to sell items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule to the plaintiff. One Loganatha Mudaliar was the original owner of these two items of properties. He purchased item 1 in his name and item 2 in the name of his wife Rathnammal. He had two sons, the first defendant and the husband of the second defendant. His wife died in the year 1947 and he died in the year 1955. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants in the suit entered into an oral agreement on 7-2-1957 to convey the two suit items for Rs.5750 and subsequently an agreement of sale was executed by both the defendants and a sum of Rs.1000/- was paid as advance. According to the terms ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Sreenivasappa Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC784(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. After the assessment was made on the dealer for the year 1958-59 an anamath account was recovered and it showed entries betwen 22nd May, 1958, and 30th May, 1958, which led to the inference of their having existed turnover which was suppressed from the regular accounts. Notice for assessment of escaped turnover Under Section 16 was given by the Commercial Tax Officer who estimated the suppressions at rupees five lakhs odd. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the quantum of suppression to rupees two lakhs odd. In appeal the lower Appellate Tribunal made its own estimate of the suppression at rupees on lakh. The assessee now appearing in revision before us contended that the assessment of escaped turnover in his case had been made not on the basis of the exact quantum of omitted turnover but on an estimate to the best of the judgment. According to the submission of the petitioner-assessee, when a question of assessment of escaped turnover Under Section 16 aris...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division Vs. M.K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC732(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The question that has arisen for decision in these three revision cases is identical but with this difference that in T. C. No. 31 of 1963 the matter was dealt with under the 1959 Act, amended, whereas in T. C. Nos. 30 and 53 of 1963, the matter was dealt with under exactly analogous provisions of the Sales Tax Act of 1939. For the sake of simplicity, we shall take the new Act, and T. C. No. 31 of 1963 in which it is applied. Section 4 of the 1959 Act is the charging section in respect of declared goods and reads thus :-4. Tax in respect of declared goods.-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, the tax under this Act shall be payable by a dealer on the sale or purchase inside the State of declared goods at the rate and only at the point specified against each in the Second Schedule on the turnover in such goods in each year, whatever be the quantum of turnover in that year :Provided that where a tax has been levied under this section in respect of the sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Management, Murugalli Estate, Hardypel Post Vs. Industrial Tribunal, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad263
ORDER(1) On a reference under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial disputes Act, the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, adjudicated that the non-employment from a certain date of Dr. Srinivasan, whose cause has been espoused by the second respondent Union, was not justified. It was of the view that, in the circumstances, no reinstatement should be directed but it would meet the ends of justice if the specified sum of money was directed to be paid to him. this petition is to quash the Tribunal's award.(2) On behalf of the petitioner two points have been urged. The first is that Dr. Srinivasan was not a 'worker' within the meaning of the definition of that term in the Industrial disputes Act. The second is that the second respondent Union is a general Union and was not competent to take up the cause of Dr. Srinivasan and raise an industrial dispute. As part of this point it is also contended that, in any case, there was no community of interest between Dr. Srinivasan and the other workers under the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoormal Premchand Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Mad39
(1) These two writ appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed by the appellant to quash the order passed by the Collector of Customs in order No. S. No. 363/27/57 dated 26-3-1958 as illegal, void and inoperative in law and in violation or the fundamental rights granted and guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Constitution particularly under Arts. 19(1)(f) and(g) and 20(3), or, in the alternative, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of Customs to return to the petitioner about 305-56 tools of gold wrongfully seized and confiscated by the respondent. When these two writ petitions came up for hearing before Jagadisan J., he dismissed the petitions on the ground that the appellant failed to make out a case either for the issue of a writ of certiorari or that there were sufficient grounds for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of Customs to return the gold to the appellant. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of these two appeals a...
Tag this Judgment!Depty Commissioner of Commrcial Taxes, Coimbator Division Vs. Needle I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC809(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. Under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, a seller, who effects a sale of goods constituting an inter-State sale, is permitted to pay sales tax at the favourable rate of one per cent., if the sale is effected to a registered dealer and subject also to the condition stated in Section 8(4) of the Act that the seller shall furnish a declaration in the form prescribed as Form 'C '. The Madras State Government under its rule-making powers, framed Rule 10(1), the proviso of which at the period of the present sale, read :Provided that no single declaration shall cover more than one transaction of sale, except in cases where the total amount covered by one declaration is equal to or less than Rs. 5,000 or such other amount as the State Government may, by a general order, notify in the Fort St. George Gazette.2. This proviso was subsequently modified thus :Provided that when goods are delivered in instalments within the same financial year against one purchase order, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Company Private Ltd. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC804(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1.This appeal arises from the order of the Board of Revenue revising the assessment on the assessee in exercise of its power under Setion 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959. The assessing authority examined the transactions of the appellant in regard inter alia to a claim made for exemption for a turnover of Rs. 6,14,144-4-9 under the heading of inter-State sales. It found that except in the case of a turnover of Rs. 1,521-1-9, the invoices in the remaining cases showed that the claim for exemption was sustainable and granted exemption accordingly for a sum of Rs. 6,12,623-3-0. This order was passed on 29th September, 1958. The Board of Revenue, by an order passed on 1st September, 1962, set aside this claim for exemption. It relied upon a later decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland's case [1961] 12 S.T.C. 379. In the view of the Board of Revenue, the effect of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, as well as the amendment to Setion 22 of the Mad...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›