Chennai Court August 1971 Judgments
Thiruvalar Spinning Mills Vs. the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC459(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to entertain the application for rectification made by the petitioner within time and cause a reappraisal of his liability to tax and for such other directions as are necessary. The facts may be stated as follows :2. The petitioner, whose returns and accounts were rejected by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Karur, the second respondent, was assessed under the best judgment method under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the year 1964-65. The order of assessment is dated 29th January, 1966. Aggrieved against the said order, which was apparently made not after a scrutiny of the accounts, the petitioner filed an appeal and obtained relief in part. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order is dated 10th August, 1966, and it has become final. After the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner filed a petition dated 9th November, 1966, before the second respondent claiming...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Express (Madurai) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mount ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC88(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. In these two writ petitions an interesting question has arisen, whether newspapers are goods for which a dealer registered under the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is entitled to obtain a certificate under Section 7 of the above Act read with Section 8 thereto, so as to gain a concessional rate of tax as prescribed in the Act. Messrs Indian Express (Madurai) Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is a publisher of English and Tamil daily newspapers and also weekly journal with its registered office at Madurai and allied offices at Bangalore, Madras and Vijayawada. In the course of its business of printing and publishing newspapers, it is common ground that it purchases news-print, white printing paper, printing ink, papers and boards, metals, lead type, photographic materials, etc., for the production and publication of such newspapers. The petitioner was registered as a dealer under Section 20 of the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sundaresan Vs. the Board of Revenue (C.T.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC691(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. On 1st October, 1969, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur II, finding that the petitioner was effecting sales of goods in his shop without issuing a bill, issued a notice under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and called upon the petitioner to pay the compounding fee of Rs. 100. This notice was based on the objective satisfaction of the officer that a contravention of Section 45(2)(d) read with Rule 26 of the Rules made under the Act had occurred. The petitioner did pay the compounding fee of Rs. 100 but he filed a revision petition to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 33 of the Act questioning the propriety of the levy of the compounding fee. That was dismissed. A further revision to the Board of Revenue, Madras, was not successful. The petitioner has come up to this cou...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Cherian Vs. K.N. Cherian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1971
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas235(Mad)
Palaniswamy, J.1. This petition is filed under Sections 397, 398 and 402(c) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is one of the sons of the first respondent, the other sonsbeing respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Thompson & Company (Private) Limited, the sixth respondent, was incorporated in 1931. The main business of the company is to print and publish books and other materials. The shares of the company have been held mostly by the members of the family of the first respondent. Alleging acts of mismanagement and oppression, the petitioner and the fifth respondent filed C. P. No. 68 of 1969 on the file of this court for an order under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. That petition was opposed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4. That was being adjourned from time to time and finally the petitioner and the fifth respondent took out Application No. 433 of 1969 under Rules 9, 11(b) and 88(2) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for leave to withdraw the co...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Textiles Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC381(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioners are dealers doing business in braided cords, ribbons and tapes. For the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the petitioners were assessed to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioners took up the original orders of assessment on appeal and contended that the turnover which related to the braided cords and tapes could not be included in the assessable turnover. But the appellate authority did not accept this contention. The subject was not pursued further. Thereafter, the petitioners had to pay local sales tax as well as Central sales tax levied under the orders as above. It transpires that subsequent to the pronouncement of the appellate orders for the years in question, this court in Government of Madras v. M.B.C. and T.P.C. Industrial Society [1968] 22 S.T.C. 470 held the view that the braided cords are not to be subjected to sales tax either under the Madras General Sales Tax Act or und...
Tag this Judgment!The Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC431(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, Industrial Estate, Guindy, are the petitioners. For the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the petitioners were assessed to local tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as also to Central sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The orders of assessment under the relevant Acts for the year 1962-63 were made on 18th November, 1963. Similarly for the year 1963-64, the orders were made by the appropriate authorities on 31st December, 1964. Both the assessments arose out of business and commercial dealings of the petitioners which are to be traced to a contract which I shall presently refer to. Some time thereafter, the respondents purporting to act under Section 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, sought to reopen the assessments made for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as if those assessments ought to have been done under the Madras General Sales Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!The Srirangam Municipality Vs. V. Nataraja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad430
1. The question that comes up for consideration in this second appeal is as to whether the plaintiff in O.S. No. 548 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefit of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.2. The respondent herein took on lease from the Srirangam Municipality, the appellant herein, 7 acres of sewage farm in Coleroon road, Vellithirumutham village in 1960 for a period of 3 years in a public auction held for the purpose. The lease was also renewed for a further period of 3 years from 1-4-1963. As the lease in favour of the respondent expired on 31-3-1966, there was a fresh auction for the lease of the sewage farm on 19-3-1966 and one Rahmatullah was the highest bidder for Rs. 26001, and the respondent was the next highest bidder for Rs. 25716. The municipality passed a resolution on 22-3-1966 accepting the second highest bid of the respondent for Rs. 25716 without assigning any reason for rejecting the h...
Tag this Judgment!Chelliah Konar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu by the Special Land Acquisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ208
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. For the purpose of laying a scheme road under the Madurai District, South-west Extension, Part III Town 'Planning Scheme, R.S. No. 2/6-B and some other lands in Madakulam Village, Madurai Taluk, werfe notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the notification was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 14th December, 1962, invoking the urgency provisions and by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. The. draft declaration under Section 6 was published on 9th May, 1962. There was an erratum to the declaration, and the same was published on nth December, 1963'. Out of an extent of 4.45 acres declared for acquisition, awards for an extent of 4.45 acres were passed in the years 1964 and 1965. There remained only an extent of n cents in R.S. No. 2/6B. A portion of that land belonged to one Ayisha Bibi. She made a representation to the Government to reduce the width of the road so far as her land was concerned. The Government acceded...
Tag this Judgment!Vadamalaimuthu Seelaraja Pandian Etc. Vs. Krishnaswami Kamaya Naicker ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1971
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ71
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. One Vadamalaimuthu Seelaraja Pandian, having filed before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, his application under Section 45 (2) (b) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, has appealed to this Court. The Bodinaickanur Zamin was notified and taken over under the provisions of that Act. He had applied under Section 42 (1) for a declaration that he was entitled to half the advance compensation, but this claim was unsuccessful, and does not survive now. The appeal is only confined to the maintenance claimed in the alternative. On the death of T. V. K. Kamaraja II on 16th February, 1941, the succession dispute ended in favour of T. B. B. S. Rajaya Pandia : Chinnathayi alias Veeralakshmi v. Kulasekara Pandia Naicker and Anr : [1952]1SCR241 . Veeralakshmi, the widow of T.V. K. Kamaraja II adopted to her late husband a son by name Sri S. Krishnaswamy, on 25th March, 1953. The validity of the adoption was eventually upheld by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanabaranam Pillai Vs. Rathinam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad364
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant before us. and the question is whether to the application he filed for setting aside of the court auction sale at which the decree-holder was the purchaser, Rule 90 of Order 21, Civil P. C was applicable. It is common ground that the judgment-debtor failed to furnish security as required by the proviso to R. 90. The first two courts have found-and Kailasam, J. did not differ-that the properties were sold for an inadequate price as a result of wrong details set out in the sale proclamation regarding those properties. There were material irregularities in giving description of the properties and there was as a result as has been found, a substantial injury caused to the judgment-debtor. On an earlier occasion when the question of necessity to furnish security under Rule 90 came up for consideration in C. M. A. No. 102 of 1956, Anantanarayanan, J. (as he then was) saw force in the contention and said that in view of the decision ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »