Chennai Court August 1971 Judgments
Mallika Battery Service Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC583(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. In these three writ petitions, the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent in having issued three independent notices for three assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 calling upon the petitioner to answer a charge of escapement of tax. The notices seem to have been issued evidently under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.2. I shall quote the relevant portions of one such notice which is enough for the purpose. After stating that the petitioner was assessed to tax for the relevant year in question on a specified taxable turnover, the respondent proceeds to state :It is now found that the dealers were given exemption wrongly in respect of batteries locally purchased and rebuilt by them and also uncharged batteries purchased and sold as charged batteries. It is, therefore, proposed to revise the assessment.3. In the other notices, the language used is slightly different, to wit:The exemptions allowed in respect of second s...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Kuppanna Chettiar and Sons Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC5(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is one of the partners of the firm of M/s. S. K. Kuppanna Chettiar and Sons, carrying on business in the district of Coimbatore. It is not denied that the petitioner obtained a registration certificate under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules indicating therein the names of places or godowus in which he was keeping his goods. On 7th September, 1967, the petitioner's residential premises was searched and inspected by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Darapuram. In the course of such inspection certain stocks of goods were found in the pial of the residential premises of Sri S. K. Kuppanna Chettiar, one of the partners in the firm. When confronted with such a situation, Sri Kuppanna Chettiar for arid on behalf of the petitioner-firm is said to have given a statement admitting that the said stock in the pial represented the stock-in-trade of the firm. On the strength of the said confession and as the g...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Kuppanna Chettiar and Sons Vs. the State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ246
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is one of the partners of the firm of Messrs. S.K. Kuppanna Chettiar and Sons, carrying on business in the district of Coimbatore. It is not denied that the petitioner obtained a registration certificate under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules indicating therein the names of places or godowns in which he Was keeping his goods. On 7th September, 1967, the petitioner's residential premises was searched and inspected by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Dharapuram. In the course of such inspection certain stocks of goods were found in the pial of the residential premises of Sri S.K. Kuppanna Chettiar, one of the partners in the firm. When confronted with such 3 situation, Sri Kuppanna Chettiar for and on behalf of the petitioner firm is said to have given a statement admitting that the said stook in the pial represented the stock-in-trade, of the firm. On the strength of the said confession and as ...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Parasuraman and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad123
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This group of petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution is concerned with the validity of some of the provisions of the Madras Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act 1966. It is said that they violate Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. We may take W. P. 3818 of 1968 as an example. The petitioner describes himself as the managing partner of a registered partnership firm under the name and style of the Minerva Tutorial College, Halls Road, Madras. He is also stated to be the proprietor and Principal of the Tutorial College. His prayer is for a rule directing the respondent, the State of Madras, from enforcing the provisions of the Act against the College. It is said to have been established in about 1931 to coach students who have failed in their University examinations as private candidates. Two sessions in a year are held, one from June to September, and the other from the middle of November of March, to enable the candidates to appear for...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC567(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. In this batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act (Act No. 14 of 1970) is assailed on grounds of legislative incompetence and violation of articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. In Writ Petition No. 3551 of 1970, taken as illustrative, the petitioner is a private limited liability company, carrying on its business at Madurai dealing mainly as a body-builder, constructing various types of bodies on chassis supplied by customers and also as manufacturer of automobile rubber goods for sale. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer III, Madurai Town, who is the assessing authority, has served on the petitioner a notice dated 21st September, 1970, demanding Rs. 94,596.00 as additional advance tax for the year 1970-71 and calling upon it to pay the amount in 12 equated monthly instalments. The petitioner claims, on ground of invalidity of the Act, that the demand is liable to be quashed on certiorari. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries (Private) Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ186
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. In this batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act (XIV of 1970) is assailed on grounds of legislative incompetence and violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. In W.P. No. 3551 of 1970, taken as illustrative, the petitioner is a private limited liability company, carrying on its business at Madurai dealing mainly as a body builder constructing various types of bodies on chassis supplied by customers and also as manufacturer of automobile rubber goods for sale. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, III, Madurai town, who is the assessing authority, has served on the petitioner a notice dated 21st September, 1970, demanding Rs. 94,596 as additional advance tax for the year 1970-71 and calling upon it to pay the amount in 12 equated monthly instalments. The petitioner claims, on ground of invalidity of the Act, that the demand is liable to be quashed on certiorari. The preamble to t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and anr. Vs. Periakaramalai Te ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR643(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.1. This batch of tax cases is concerned with the question whether the Tribunal's view that the deductions under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act should be applied to the profits and gains attributable to any priority industry before rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules is applied to ascertain the agricultural income chargeable to tax. What the Income-tax Officer appears to have done in these cases is that he computed the business income, after allowing the usual deductions, and arrived, for instance, in the assessment for the year 1966-67 relating to the Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Company Ltd., at Rs. 39,24,434. He then ascertained 40 per cent. of it and from that he deducted 8 per cent. to arrive at the net income chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer proceeded on the basis that 60 per cent. of Rs. 39,24,434 represented agricultural income chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Rambal Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC526(Mad)
1. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of machine screws at Lattice Bridge. It is a company and the object of the company should have been specified in the memorandum of association. :It does not appear that the sale of scrap which accumulates from time to time in the course of the manufacture of machine screws is intended to be part of the business of manufacturers of machine screws. The scrap has to be disposed of and the disposal of it does not necessarily indicate that it was in the course of business. The business, as we said, of the assessee is really manufacture of machine screws and not sale of scrap. On that view the tax cases are dismissed; there will be no costs....
Tag this Judgment!Pappammal (Died) and ors. Vs. K. Kuppuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ481
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No, 278 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that his mother Poovathal had acquired a vested interest in the suit properties under the terms of the will dated 12th December, 1929, executed by his maternal grand-father, one Ramana Goundar, that he has inherited the said vested right on the death of his mother and that the will dated 4th August, 1964, executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as though she had an. absolute right over the property was not Valid and binding on him.2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the will dated 12th December, 1929, executed by Ramana Goundar gave an absolute right to the first defendant in the suit properties, that the first defendant could dispose of the same by her will dated 4th August, 1964, and that the plaintiff had not acquired any vested interest in the suit properties under ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Balakrishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad236
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 331 of 1963 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Arni, is the appellant herein. In the trial court, there were two suits, O. S. No. 274 of 1963 filed by the son against the father and daughter, and O. S. No. 331 of 1963 filed by the father and daughter against the son. O. S. No. 274 of 1963 was a suit for declaration of title and for an injunction restraining the father and daughter from interfering with his possession and O. S. No. 331 of 1963 was a suit for partition and separate possession of the father's half share and for allotment of that half share to his daughter--he second plaintiff in that suit, and for other reliefs.2. The allegations in O. S. No. 274 of 1963 were, that the plaintiff was the son of the first defendant and the second defendant was the daughter of the first defendant and sister of the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff A and B schedule properties belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and the first defendant; t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »