Chennai Court November 1969 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.
Secretary, Bank of Madurai Limited Represented by His Power of Attorne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ239
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The following two questions were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras by the Central Government:1. Whether the management of the Bank of Madura Limited, Madurai, is justified in not treating the special allowance as part of the salary or wage, for the purpose of calculation of bonus payable to its employees for the years 1964 and 1965? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?2. Whether the management of the Bank of Madura Limited, Madurai, is justified in not paying bonus for the years 1964 and 1965 to the 'Probationers' employed by them If not, to what relief are the said probationers entitled?By an award dated 30th December, 1967 in I.D. No. 20 of 1967 the Industrial Tribunal answered both these questions in favour of the employees. It is to quash this award that the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. As far as the first question is concerned, it turns upon the definit...
Madura Mills Company Limited Vs. Government of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC407(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Madura Mills Company, Limited, Madurai, the assessee-petitioner herein, was assessed for the assessment year 1959-60 both under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the M.G.S.T. Act) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the C.S.T. Act). We are not here concerned with the assessment under the M.G.S.T. Act. A turnover of Rs. 7,96,61,509.04 was adopted as the turnover for purposes of the C.S.T. Act. After allowing certain exemptions and deductions the taxable turnover was determined by the assessing authority at Rs. 7,87,77,857.26. On the ground that a turnover of .Rs. 5,32,910.05 out of the determined turnover was not covered by 'C' Forms, the same was subject to the non-concessional rate of 7 per cent, and the petitioner was assessed to Central sales tax. In the turnover so excluded from the benefit of the statutory concession, it is claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,68,399.54 represented the sales t...
Madura Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Government of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ358
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Madura Mills Company, Limited, Madurai, the assessee petitioner herein, was assessed for the assessment year 1959-60 both under the Madras Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to us the M.G.S.T. Act) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the C.S.T. Act). We are not here concerned with the assessment under the M.G.S.T. Act), A turnover of Rs. 7,96,61,509-04 was adopted as the turnover for purposes of the C.S.T. Act. After allowing certain exemptions and deductions, the taxable turnover was determined by the assessing authority at Rs. 7,87,77,857-26. On the ground that a turnover of Rs. 5,32,910-05 out of the determined turnover was not covered by ' C ' forms, the same was subject to the non-concessional rate of 7 per cent and the petitioner was assesseed to Central Sales Tax. In the turnover so excluded from the benefit of the statutory concession, it is claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,68,399-54 represented the sales tur...
M. Haji Mohamed Ismail Sahib and Co. Vs. the State of Madras, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad378; [1970]26STC73(Mad)
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. We are not satisfied that there is any substance in this review petition. It is said that Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid and Co. v. State of Madras, : AIR1963SC928 was a fact and that having not been placed before the Court when T. C. No, 209 of 1963 was disposed of that will be within Section 12-B(7)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. That clause says that this court might, on the appli-cation either of the assessee or of the Deputy Commissioner, review any order passed by it under Sub-section (4) 'on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order'. Though prima facie those words may bring in a case like the one under consideration, we are inclined to think that the power being one of review, the general principles applicable to that power, which are so well settled by now, should be borne in mind in assessing the scope and effect of Section 12-B (7) (a). Obviously, review is not intended to correct the laches or omission or negligen...
M. Haji Mohammed Ismail Sahib and Co., Tanners, Pernambut, North Arcot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad422; [1970]25STC328(Mad)
1. Actually the reference to the Full Bench was on the question of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to go into the vires of a provision in the Act or the Rules. But it seems to us that there can be no controversy on the question in view ofVenkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras, . Kailasam, J., in dismissing the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was of the view that the ratio of was in the context of the advisory juris diction of this Court under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act and that since the revisional jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act is not of that character, the principle of would not apply. But we find that (17 STC 418) itself related to the revisional power of the High Court under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. That decision, therefore, directly applies to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Act in exercise of which a question of vires of any provision in the Act cannot ...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Appellate Assistant Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad494; [1970]26STC549(Mad)
1. The assessee, who is the common respondent, was an unlicensed dealer in hides and skins assessed to sales tax on March, 23, 1956 and his appeal therefrom had failed. Thereafter, he paid part of the tax, and, while he remained in arrears of the balance, he took out two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, one in April, 1964 to forbid the Revenue from collecting the balance of the tax, and, the other in August, 1966 to quash the order dismissing his appeal. These two petitions were allowed by this Court following Hajee Abdul Wahab & Sons v. Govt. of Madras,(1966) 17 STC 284 (Mad). In that case Srinivasan and Venkatadri, JJ., were of the view that since by the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, relevant to the assessment year 1953-54, tanned hides and skins as one category had been taxed differently in the hands of the local tanner and in the hands of the person who imported them, either dressed or undressed, tanned and sold, the provisions, were dis...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram and Company (P.) Ltd. and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: [1970]78ITR162(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of tax cases it is enough to notice the facts in T. C. No. 152 of 1961. T. C. Nos. 14 and 21 of 1965 are connected with T. C. No. 152 of 1961. In T. C. No. 153 of 1961, excepting for the amounts covered in this case are different from that arising in T.C. No. 152 of 1961, the other facts are identical and even so the questions of law arising therein. T.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1965 are connected with T.C. No. 153 of 1961. In all these cases the assessment year is 1956-57. In T.C. No. 152 and 1961 and the connected cases, the assessee is Sundaram and Company (Private) Ltd., Madurai, and in T,C, No 151 of 1961 and the connected case, the assessee is Manickavasagam (Private) Ltd., Madurai. In fact, the present proceedings, at any rate, covering T.C. No. 152 of 1961, are set before us on an order of remand made by the Supreme Court in Sundaram & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, : [1967]66ITR604(SC) . The said case was disposed of by the Supreme C...
The State of Madras Represented by the Appellate Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ234
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The assessee, who is the common respondent, was as an unlicensed dealer in hides and skins assessed to sales tax on 23rd March, 1956 and his appeal therefrom had failed. Thereafter he paid part of the tax, and, while he remained in arrears of the balance, he took out two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, one in April, 1964 to forbid the Revenue from collecting the balance of the tax, and, the other in August, 1966 to quash the order dismissing his appeal. These two petitions were allowed by this Court following Hajee Abdul Wahab & Sons v. Government of Madras (1966) 17. S.T.C. 284. In that case Srinivasan and Venkatadri, JJ. were of the View that since by the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, relevant to the assessment year 1953-54, tanned hides and skins as one category had been taxed differently in the hands of the local tanner and in the hands of the person who imported that, either dressed or undressed, tanned and sold, ...
M. Haji Mohamed Ismail Sahib and Company Vs. the State of Madras Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ624
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. We are not satisfied that there is any substance in this review petition. It is said that Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid and Co. v. State of Madras (1964) 1 S.C.J. 355 : (1964) 1 M.L.J.115 : (1964) 1 A.W.R. 115 : (1963) 14 S.T.C. 355, was a fact and that having not been placed before the Court when T. C. No. 209 of 1963 was disposed of that will be within Section 12-B (7) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. That clause says that this Court might on the application either of the assessee or of the Deputy Commissioner, review any order passed by it under Sub-section (a) ' on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order.' Though prima facie those words may bring in a case like the one under consideration, we are inclined to think that the power being one of review, the general principles applicable to the power, which are so well settled by now, should be borne in mind in assessing the scope and effect of Section 12-B (7) (a). Obviously ...
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Vs. A. Anantharam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad314; [1970]25STC276(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. We are of the view that State of Madras v. T.C.M. Society Ltd.. (1865) 16 STC 760 (Mad) has been correctly decided. One of us was a party to the reference, which was made on the view that if the person, who sold the agricultural produce, did so as an agent simpliciter, the proceeds of sale would not be liable to charge under the Act, That of course is true. But where the agent himself, as a Commission Agent, is also a dealer, on a strict reading of the proviso to Section 2 (r). he would not be entitled to the exclusion from the turnover of sales of agricultural produce, unless he had himself grown the produce on his own land or on land in which he had an interest. 2. There is no dispute here that the assesses for the year 1961-62 was a dealer in chillies; nor is there any dispute that the turnover in dispute, namely. Rupees 63,743-80 represented sales of agricultural produce. But the bills issued by the as-sessee unmistakably point to the fact that he had sold the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »