Chennai Court March 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
D.H. Shah and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC146(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is to revise an order of the Tribunal upholding validity of the levy of penalty under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The matter relates to the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee was provisionally assessed for the year on a turnover of Rs. 17,002.96 on the foot of the return filed by it in Form A. There was an inspection of the place of business by a Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Detection), Thanjavur, along with a certain other officer on 8th October, 1959, and certain secret accounts in Gujarati language were recovered. They are claimed to relate to the years 1954-55 to 1959-60 and transactions relating to the assessee's business. On a scrutiny of the accounts a further turnover of Rs. 5,63,053.42 was discovered for the year in question, and eventually there was an assessment of a net turnover of Rs. 3,86,099.26. At the same time a turnover of Rs. 1,76,954.16 was...
Bay's Medicals Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC259(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The only point in this Tax Case is whether the Tribunal was right in its view that there was no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. The assessment order was dated 10th August, 1961, and was actually served on the assessee on 17th August, 1961. The appeal should be filed within thirty days, that is, on or before 16th September, 1961. Actually, it was filed on 17th' February, 1962, after a delay of 154 days. The ground on which the assessee wanted condonation was that during the period covered by the delay, he was prosecuting another remedy. He was assessed to a tax of Rs. 7,885.30. He had paid a sum of Rs. 3,799.03. As regards the balance, he claimed that his principal had paid a sum of Rs. 4,005.82 and that this should be adjusted. On that basis the assessee sent by cheque the balance of Rs. 80.45. This was on 8th September, 1961. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, however, referred to the Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, and it was only on 14th February, 1962, o...
State of Madras, by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ620
K. Veeraswami, 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 I of 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 contende...
V.A.K. Krishna Nadar, Represented by Partner V.A.K. Manickavachaka Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ602
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. Writ Petition No. 727 of 1966 is preferred by the reconstituted firm of V.A.K. Krishna Nadar for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the refusal to grant licences to the petitioner for the period prior to April 1962 to March 1963 contained in the order of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, dated 5th January, 1965 and confirmed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, in his order dated 6th July, 1965 and quash the same;2. Writ Petition No. 728 of 1965 is filed by the same firm for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, and the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, to grant licences to the petitioners for the back periods from April, 1961, onwards viz., for the periods April to September, 1961 and October, 1961 to March, 1962.3. As the two writ petitions arise out of the same order they may be dealt with together...
Andisers and Electroplaters Vs. Government of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad283
ORDER(1) The petitioner who is carrying on a small-scale electro-plating industry has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Government of Madras passed in G.O. Ms. No. 3825, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 16-7-1965 directing the petitioner to place the portion of the premises No. 304-A, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras, occupied by it at the disposal of the Chingleput District Co-operative. Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., within three months of the date of the order. The impugned order has been passed by the Government, the first respondent herein, in exercise of their powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S. 29 of the Defence of India Act as they were of opinion that it was necessary to requisition the said premises for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, namely, for the improvement of the consumer activities by the said society, the second respondent herein.(2) The Chingleput...
Muthu Gounder Vs. the Government of Madras, Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ349
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to restrain the respondents from taking possession of land of an extent of 58 cents comprised in S. No. 400/13 and another extent of 52 cents bearing S. No. 400/14-A under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The grounds of the petitioner are that the State was not justified in invoking the urgency provisions in the Land Acquisition Act and there was failure to specify in the notification under Section 4(1) whether the urgency was invoked under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 17. As early as 20th December, 1961 the Collector made an inspection of the site but it is said that his inspection notes were dated only 20th February, 1963. On 12th June, 1963, a provisional conclusion was reached to acquire the lands, the public purpose being to provide house-sites for Harijans in the village. The notification under Section 4(1) was made ready on 23rd March, 1964, and it was actually published in...
Anodisers and Electroplaters by Partner Rajni Kant M. Mehta Vs. Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ326
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner who is carrying on a small scale Electroplating Industry has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Government of Madras passed in G.O.Ms. No. 3825, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 16th July, 1965 directing the petitioner to place the portion of the premises 304-A, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras, occupied by it at the disposal of the Chingleput District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society, Limited within three months of the date of the order. The impugned order had been passed by the Government, the first respondent herein in exercise of their powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, as they were of opinion that it was necessary to requisition the said premises for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, namely, for the improvement of the consumer activities by the said society, the second respondent...
State of Madras Vs. Moulvie Estate, Nagalur.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR138(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The question is, whether the sum of Rs. 4,200 paid out to the managing partner of the firm is deductible as an expenditure under section 5(e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The firms consists of nine partners and has been during the assessment year 1963-64 a 2/9th share. In consideration of his services as managing partner of the firm, he was paid a total remuneration of Rs. 4,200 for the year. It was sought to be deducted as salary. The departmental officers took the view that a managing partner could in no sense be described as a servant of the firm and disallowed the amount. The Tribunal was of an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the land.We think the Tribunal, view is correct. The question is not whether the managing partner was a servant. He may or may not be that; but the point is, whether he was not entitled to be remunerated for the services he rendered to the firm which pursued agricultural operations, in this cas...
C.i. Kannan Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad280; [1968(16)FLR124]; (1968)ILLJ770Mad
ORDER(1) W. P. No. 2823 of 1966 is preferred by the Head Clerk in the office of the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras, for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order of suspension passed against him by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation on 12-7-1966, the charge Memo dated 17-8-1966 and the order dated 16-11-1966 directing an enquiry. W. P. 162 of 1967 is preferred by the employees of the Employees State Insurance Corporation represented by the All India Employees State Insurance Corporation Employees Federation for the issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the employees' State Insurance Corporation or its officers from initiating or conducting action against the employees of the Employees State Insurance Corporation or from enforcing decisions taken against the said employees for their participation in the agitation held in July 1966.(2) The two writ petitions relate to the same matter, W. P. No. 2823 of 1966 being by ...
Madurai General Workers' Union (by secretary) Vs. Brinda Textiles Hand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ101Mad
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition in the secretary, Madurai General Workers' Union, Madurai. Respondent 1 in the management of Brinda Textiles Handloom Factory. Madurai, and respondent 2 is the presiding officer, labour const. Madurai. After the petition was filed, one P.R. Krishnamurthi, who was the sole proprietor of respondent 1, died, and bin legal representative, namely, his widow and children, were brought on record an respondents 3 to 7, in the writ petition.2. On the initiative taken by the petitioner-union, the Government of Madras referred to the labour court. Madurai, for adjudication the questions, whether the non-employment of eighteen workers (whose names were appended) was justified and to what relief each was entitled and to compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it could be so computed.3. A brief reference to the facts that preceded the above referance can now toe made. The eighteen workers according to the management, w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »