Chennai Court April 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.
M. Royappa Goundar and anr. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Erode and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad274
Veeraswami, J.(1). These two petitions for certiorari involve the interpretation of the true scope and ambit of the Madras Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966, more specially Sections 2 and 7 of the Act. For deciding this question, it will suffice to notice the facts in W.P. No. 2408 of 1966.(2) The petitioner in that case is the Managing partner of a Cinema Theatre styled as 'The K.M.S. Theatre' at Mettupalayam in Coimbatore district. The other partners of the firm are his two brothers, one of whom is a minor. On 7-11-1965, the Commercial Tax Officer, Erode, made a surprise inspection of the theatre and found the booking clerk actually selling unauthorised tickets with forget seal 'C.T.O., Mettupalayam'. The officer seized the forged seal of the C.T.O., Mettupalayam, the connected machines, materials and the incriminating records including the bogus tickets with and without numbers. The department claimed that the records so recovered revealed sale of spurious tickets from 1962 t...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Vs. O.K. Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC145(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The assessee, who is the respondent, having failed to get exemption from tax on a turnover of Rs. 6,227 as representing second purchases, successfully appealed to the Tribunal. The department went upon the basis that as the respondent failed to comply with Rule 26(13) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, it necessarily followed that the respondent forfeited his right to single point taxation, even if he had otherwise established that the transactions to the value of Rs. 6,227 relate to second sales.2. We do not think that Rule 26(13) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules is mandatory. The rule does not say so. It merely relates to a manner of keeping accounts. Section 3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is quite clear that in the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule, the tax is payable by the buyer at the rate and only at the point specified therein on the turnover in each year. This sub-section is not subject to any other provision or...
M. Royappa Goundar and anr. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ546
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. These two petitions for certiorari involve the interpretation of the true scope and ambit of the Madras Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966, more especially Sections 2 and 7 of the Act. For deciding this question, it will suffice to notice the facts in W.P. No. 2408 of 1966.2. The petitioner in that case is the Managing Partner of a cinema theatre styled as 'The K.M.S. Theatre' at Mettupalayam in Coimbatore district. The other partners of the firm are his two brothers, one of whom is a minor. On 7th November, 1965, the Commercial Tax Officer, Erode, made a surprise inspection of the theatre and found the booking clerk actually selling unauthorised tickets with a forged seal 'Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam '. The Officer seized the forged seal of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam, the connected machines, materials, and the incriminating records including the bogus tickets with and without numbers. The department claimed that the records so reco...
Kalyanasundara Nadar and anr. Vs. Muthuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ317
M. Natesan, J.1. The manager and correspondent of the Asoka Vidyalayam Higher Elementary School, Kachinavilai, and the school represented by him are appellants, in this second appeal. The appeal arises out of an action by the respondent herein,, a higher grade trained teacher and permanent employee of the school whose services-were terminated by the management. The respondent as plaintiff averred in his plaint that the order terminating his services was illegal, unjust and arbitrary and prayed inter alia for a declaration that he continued or must be deemed to continue as the assistant teacher of the school, for his reinstatement as a teacher and for a money decree directing the management to pay him the salary and allowances attached to the post which had accrued. The learned District Munsif, Servaikuntam, decreed the suit as prayed for giving a declaration that the plaintiff continues or must be deemed to continue as an assistant teacher of the school and consequently a mandatory inj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›