Chennai Court March 1967 Judgments
Hakim Syed Abid HussaIn and Sons Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC350(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The petitioner was charged to tax for the assessment year 1960-61 on a net turnover of Rs. 2,17,727 representing, as was claimed by the revenue, inter-State sales of raw skins and a net turnover of Rs. 2,01,963 being the value of the last purchase in the State, according to the revenue, by it of raw skins. In respect of the two assessments penalties of Rs. 3,265 and Rs. 3,029 respectively were imposed. The petitioner claimed that there were no sales effected by it in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and that the last purchases of raw skins not being made by it, it was not liable to charge either under the Central Sales Tax Act or under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. But the claim was rejected by the revenue at all the stages and also by the Tribunal.2. The point in both these cases turns on whether delivery of raw skins to out-of-State dealers in respect of the turnover of Rs. 2,17,727 was within the State of Madras ; if it was, the claim of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manicka Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ760
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this criminal revision case is not covered by any authority. The question is, whether the Police can issue summons to any person in the course of an investigation relating to proceedings arising under part IV of the Criminal Procedure Code for prevention of offences.2. The petitioners were summoned by the police under Section 160 Crl.P.C. to appear for an enquiry into a petition under Section 145 Crl.P.C. filed by one Sella Songayya Kilari before the Executive First Class Magistrate, Tiruvallur. The petitioners failed to appear and they were duly prosecuted for an offence under Section 174 I.P.C. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners and it was overruled by an order of the Sub Magistrate, Ponneri and the present petition has been filed to revise that order.3. Section 160 Crl.P.C. empowers a police officer making an investigation under Ch. XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, to issue summons requir...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kuppuswami Chettiar, Proprietor, Krishnananda Rice Mill Vs. Smt. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ265
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. The petitioner herein seeks to get quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari the grant of a permit for the establishment of a rice mill to the first respondent by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, under Section 5 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958.2. The petitioner is running a rice mill in Semmedu village, Gingee Taluk, South Arcot district, since 1962. The first respondent, wife of the erstwhile partner of the petitioner applied for permit under the Act for establishing a new rice mill in R.S. No 208/3 of the said Semmedu village. The application was made on 13th November 1963. The petitioner herein preferred objections, in the main asserting that location of a new mill would affect his business, that there was not enough paddy available in the area to feed the new rice mill besides providing for the existing rice mills in the area, that in the locality hand pounding was widely prevalent, and that rarely large quanti...
Tag this Judgment!K. R. Kader Batcha Vs. State of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR738(Mad)
These tax cases involve interpretation of section 9(1) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The petitioner, who is the father of two minor sons, was charged to tax on a total agricultural income for the years 1958 to 1962, from lands of the total extent of 81 acres 87 cents., wet and dry. Of this, 22 acres 10 cents were settled by him on his wife and children on May 23, 1955. An extent of 33 acres 30 cents was purchased by four sale deeds, all dated April 13, 1953, in the names of his minor children represented by their mother and guardian. An extent of 13 acres 32 cents was purchased by the wife on April 13, 1953. There is no controversy that the consideration for the purchases proceeded from the father or the husband as the case may be. The revenue, as well as the Tribunal, overruled an argument of the father that the purchases, as also the settlement, involved no transfer by him of assets from which it could be said agricultural income was derived. The same point is reit...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shanmugasundara Nadar Vs. V. Sadasivam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad60; 1968CriLJ183
ORDER(1) This petition has been filed to quash the charge framed in C.C. No. 4690 of 1966 by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, G.T., Madras.(2) The complainant-respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the Fourth Presidency Magistrate which was taken on file under S. 417, I.P.C., triable under Summons procedure. Subsequently after issuing process to the petitioner, the learned Presidency Magistrate framed a charge under S. 420, I.P.C. which is triable under warrant procedure.(3) The point that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Magistrate who took cognizance of the case under S. 190(1)(a) of an offence triable as a summons case can subsequently convert it into a warrant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. Gopalaswami contends that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence triable as a summons case, he cannot convert it under any circumstances to a warrant case, even if it is disclosed from the records and the evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Ramudu Chettiar and Company Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC283(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. There were five items of disputed' turnover of which the first two were held to consist of inter-State sales and the rest were brought under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. An appeal in respect of the first two items failed. But, an appeal as regards the rest of the items succeeded, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that these three transactions too were of an inter-State character. But in disposing of the appeal in respect of the first two items, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the assessment and brought to tax the last three items as well, but under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. On a further appeal, the Tribunal declined to interfere.2. Before us two points are urged for the assessee. The first is one of jurisdiction. The assessee purchased the goods under the five items from registered dealers in Rajasthan, where the goods are exempt from tax. The Rajasthan dealers, as is stated, declined to give the assess...
Tag this Judgment!A.B.A. Azeez Khan Sahib Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC213(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. The petitioner is said to be the owner of a lorry, M.D.S. 4105. The lorry loaded with bundles of tamarind, samai and veppakottai was stopped and checked by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, at about 3 p.m., on 17th September, 1962, at the junction of Pennagaram Road and Salem-Bangalore Road within Dharmapuri town limits. The trip sheet showed the consignor's name as one Rangiah Chetty and the consignee as 'self'. The driver had no delivery notes or sale bills with him for the consignment. Contrary to instruction by the checking officer, the driver drove away the vehicle towards Salem and returned to the spot at 10 p.m. The explanation of the driver was that out of fear he had driven away and after seeing the owner of the lorry he had come back. In lieu of confiscation, a penalty of Rs. 750 was levied which the driver paid on the spot. The Tribunal dismissed ,the petitioner's appeal.2. The only point urged before us is that under the terms of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Samba Nataraja Dikshitar Vs. Kalyanasabesa Dikshitar, the Present Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ153
M. Natesan, J.1. The plaintiff who has failed in both the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal and the only question that falls for determination is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. The short facts are: The plaintiff is one of the Podu Deekshidars of Sri Sabanayakar Temple, Chidambaram, and the suit is for a declaration that he is entitled to all the duties of his office in the above temple and to receive the emoluments therefor and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and the Podu Deekshidars from interfering with his performance of the duties of his office. The defendant has been impleaded as the Secretary of the Podu Deekshidars of the temple and as representing the temple and its Podu Deekshidars. The cause of action for the suit arose when on the failure of the plaintiff to keep a newly introduced 'Kaval Morai' (temple watch turn); he was fined and on failure to pay the fine amount the next day his rights in...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Ramudu Chettiar and Company Vs. the State of Madras (Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ315
K. Veeraswami, J.1. There were five items of disputed turnover of which the first two were held to consist of inter-State sales and the rest were brought under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. An appeal in respect of the first two items failed. But an appeal as regards the rest of the items succeeded, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that these three transactions too were of an inter-State character. But in disposing of the appeal in respect of the first two items, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the assessment and brought to tax the last three items as well, but under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. On a further appeal, the Tribunal declined to interfere.2. Before us two points are urged for the assessee. The first is one of jurisdiction. The assessee purchased the goods under the five items from registered dealers in Rajasthan, where the goods are exempt from tax. The Rajasthan dealers, as is stated declined to give the assess...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. M. Rangarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC186(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. A short point, but one of importance, arises in this case, to wit, whether penalty under Section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, can be levied on the legal representative of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the view that it is not permissible. One Muthukrishnan Naidu died on 30th October, 1960. He was the proprietor of a rice mill at Pullamangalam. There was a surprise inspection of his premises on 9th December, 1960, as a result of which certain anamath books were seized, which led to a discovery of large amount of turnover which he had failed to return. This was brought to tax. We are not concerned with this aspect. After the assessment proceedings were taken and completed after his death, and against his son as his legal representative, in addition to the tax levied, a penalty of Rs. 1,130 also was imposed under Section 12(3) which was reduced to Rs. 610 on appeal. Before the Tribunal on appeal by the legal representative, it was contended...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »