Chennai Court January 1967 Judgments
The State of Madras Vs. M.S.K. Shahul Hameed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1967
Reported in: [1967]19STC288(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. We are of the view that the Tribunal was right. The provisional returns, assuming they were incorrect, could not be the basis of assessment under Section 1.2(2) when once, before an assessment order is made, the assessee informs the assessing officer of the correct turnover. It does not, in our view, matter in which form the correct return is brought to the notice of the assessing officer before he made a final order under Section 12(2). The substance and not the form should be regarded so far as the correct return of the turnover is concerned. When a correct return or what is claimed to be a correct return is made before the assessment order, the assessing officer is bound to take note of it and is not entitled to ignore it and proceed on the footing that inasmuch as the assessee had filed incomplete or erroneous provisional monthly returns, that should be the basis for application of Section 12(2). The scheme of the Act and the history of Section 13 will clearly...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ325
K. Veeraswami, J.1. We are of the view that the Tribunal was right. The provisional returns, assuming they were incorrect, could not be the basis of assessment under Section 12(2) when once, before an assessment order is made, the assessee informs the assessment officer of the correct turnover. It does not, in our view, matter in which form the correct return is brought to the notice of the assessing officer before he made a final order under Section 12(2). The substance and not the form should be regarded so far as the correct returns of the turnover is concerned. When a correct return or what is claimed to be a correct return is made before the assessment order, the assessing officer is bound to take note of it and is not entitled to ignore it and proceed on the footing that inasmuch as the assessee had filed incomplete or erroneous provisional monthly returns, that should be the basis for application of Section 12(2). The scheme of the Act and the history of Section 13 will clearly ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Hindu Bala Patasala by Its Manager and Correspondent Sri T. Ramanu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ138
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are filed by the managements of two private elementary schools questioning the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 751, Education, dated 17th May, 1965, on the ground that it is illegal, ultra vires and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.2. The questions raised in both the Writ Petitions are the same, and may be disposed of by a common judgment. The facts in Writ Petition No. 4477 of 1965 will be stated.3. The petitioner school, A. Ramanujulu Chetty Elementary School, Muthialpe Madras, was started in 1882 by the father-in-law of the present Manager and Correspondent of the school with a strength of 4 pupils as a pial school. In 1884 the strength increased to 125 pupils and it was recognised as a Primary School by the Government of Madras in that year. The Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920, VIII of 1920, was passed and the recognition of the school in question was continued unde...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Gowrishankar Vs. the Collector of Madurai (Competent Authority) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ291
ORDERP. Ramakrishan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 22, South Chittarai Street, Madurai. In 1942, he let out the building to the Union of India, represented by the Postmaster-General, Madras, the second respondent herein, for the use of the postal department; the ground-floor being used for the Post Office and the first-floor for the residence of the Postmaster. After the expiry of the agreement of lease in February, 1947, the petitioner made strenuous efforts to get the building back for his personal occupation. Finding his efforts unsuccessful he initiated proceeding in 1959, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Madurai, under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act for recovery of possession, on the ground that he required it bona fide for his personal occupation, besides other grounds with which we are not now concerned. The petitioner did not succeed before the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority. But when he...
Tag this Judgment!Pharm Products Ltd., Thanjavur and ors. Vs. District Revenue Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad448
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These petitions were heard together because common questions of fact and of law arise in them for consideration. They are filed by certain manufacturers of patent or proprietary medicines under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, as the case may be. In all these cases the respondents who are the Board of Revenue Authorities of the Commercial Tax Department and the District Revenue Officer charged with the administration of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Excise Duties Act. 1955 (Central Act 16 of 1955) hereinafter called the Act, as amended in 1961 have, after calling for returns of their manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines since 1st June, 1961, when an amendment to the aforesaid Act was brought about under Act XIX of 1961, issued demands against the petitioners for payment of excise duty calculated ad valorem at 10 per cent of the value on the patent or proprietary medicines manufactured by the...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese and Co. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: [1967]19STC440(Mad)
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. These are petitions filed by a businessman in a case when raids were made, searches were conducted and account books were seized for the purposes of a close scrutiny, minute examination and investigation of correctness and completeness of their accounts and. the intricacies of their business dealings and transactions. On 5th June, 1964, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, the respondent herein, raided the business premises and godowns of the petitioners and seized all the available records. The gravamen of the charge of the petitioners is that they were not given an opportunity to explain the entries in the account books and correspondence seized from them before the Sales Tax Authorities passed provisional assessment. After the seizure of the records, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioners stating that the inspection of the petitioners' place of business and their godowns showed that, they were maintaining anamath accounts in a pocket n...
Tag this Judgment!Pharm Products Limited and ors. Vs. the District Revenue Officer and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ395
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These petitions were heard together because common questions of fact and of law arise in them for consideration. They are filed by certain manufacturers of patent or proprietary medicines under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, as the case may be. In all these cases the respondents who are the Board of Revenue, Authorities of the Commercial Tax Department and the District Revenue Officer charged with the administration of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Excise Duties Act, 1955 (Central Act XVI of 1955) hereinafter called the Act, as amended in 1961 have, after calling for returns of their manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines since 1st June, 1961, when an amendment to the aforesaid Act was brought about under Act XIX of 1961, issued demands against the petitioners for payment of excise duty calculated ad valorem at 10 per cent. of the value on the patent or proprietary medicines manufactured by ...
Tag this Judgment!P. L. M. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR856(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The main question we are called upon to decide on this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1922 turns on the character of the receipt of $ 8,540 as damages during the assessment year 1960-61 for breach of a mining contract. Actually there are two questions under reference to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the sum of $ 8,540 representing damages received by the assessee in the year of account as income chargeable to tax is valid ?(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the said sum of $ 8,540 is assessable in the assessment of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1960-61 or the assessment year 1958-59 ?'It is common ground before us that the second question should be answered against the assessee in view of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. A. Gajapathy Naidu and it is accordingly answered.On the first question, the revenue as well as the Tribunal considered t...
Tag this Judgment!Loganathan, Minor and ors. Vs. Ponnuswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad15
Natesan, J. 1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of our learned brother Venkatadri, J., confirming the judgment of the court of first instance, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the appellants. The facts of the case are within a narrow compass. The suit statedly one for partition is in fact and substance an attempt by a Hindu son to free his share in the family properties from a debt incurred by his father. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are brothers and members of a joint Hindu family. The first plaintiff is the son and the second plaintiff, the daughter of the second defendant. The third plaintiff is the wife of the second defendant while the fourth plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. A daughter of the first plaintiff figures as the fifth plaintiff. The tenth defendant in the suit is the Official Receiver in the Insolvency of defendants 1 and 2 and the remaining defendants are creditors and decree-holders. The only debt that is really under challenge is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Loganathan (Minor) and anr. Vs. Ponnuswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ422
M. Natesan, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of our learned brother Venkatadri, J., confirming the judgment of the Court of the first instance. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the appellants. The facts of the case are within a narrow compass. The suit statedly one for partition is in fact and substance an attempt by a Hindu son to free his share in the family properties from a debt incurred by his father. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are brothers and members of a joint Hindu family. The first plaintiff is the son and the second plaintiff, the daughter of the second defendant. The third plaintiff is the wife of the second defendant while the fourth plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. A daughter of the first plaintiff figures as the fifth plaintiff. The tenth defendant in the suit is the Official Receiver in the insolvency of defendants 1 and 2 and the remaining defendants are creditors and decree-holders. The only debt that is really under challenge i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »