Chennai Court October 1972 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.
The State of Madras Vs. S. Mohammed Samiulla Sahib and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC179(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The only question that arises in this case is whether the sales of chemicals effected by the respondent, a dealer at Madras, to the tune of Rs. 2,36,633.17 could be brought to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The account books maintained by the respondent in Madras showed that he had sold the chemicals at Bombay for Rs. 2,36,633.17. The assessing authority called upon the respondent to show that the sales to the extent of Rs. 2,36,633.17 had, in fact, been effected at Bombay. The respondent did not produce any material nor did he give the names of the purchasers to whom the goods had been sold at Bombay. Since the respondent did not produce any material to show that the chemicals had actually been sold at Bombay, the assessing authority disbelieved the case of the respondent that the chemicals had been sold at Bombay and held that the turnover of Rs. 2,36,633.17 should represent local sales of chemicals.2. The said assessment order was taken up in appeal b...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division Vs. M.R.R.M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC387(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question that arises in this case is as to whether the turnover representing the value of the coconuts sold by the respondent during the assessment year 1963-64 is entitled to exemption under the proviso to Section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It is common ground that the respondent in this case took an annual lease of a coconut thope and that under the terms of the lease he had only a right to the usufruct from the coconut trees. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authority proceeded on the basis that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under the proviso to Section 2(r) of the Act. But the Tribunal has taken the view, following the decision of this court in Jamal Mydeen v. State of Madras [1968] 22 S.T.C. 45, that the assessee is entitled to such exemption.2. Before us, the learned Government Pleader contends that the view of the Tribunal cannot be legally sustained and that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the sc...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirappalli Division Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC150(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The common question that arises in all the above cases is whether the supply of pebbles by the respondent to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation during the assessment years in question amounts to a sale or whether it partakes the character of works contract. In these cases, the respondent had entered into an agreement with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation to procure pebbles from certain portions of the Government land, which were taken on lease by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and supply them to the corporation. The said agreement provided that the royalty payable to the Government for the collection of pebbles has to be borne by the respondent, that the pebbles to be supplied to the corporation should be of a particular specification and that the corporation has got right to reject the pebbles, if they are not of the required specification. The question is whether, under the terms of the contract, the transaction of supply of pebbles to the corporation will amount to a s...
S. Ameeran Sahib and anr. Vs. Somanatha Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad308; (1973)1MLJ255
1. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in C. M. A. No. 187 of 1972 and the petitioners in C. R. P. No. 1055 of 1972. The suit was filed against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,471-56 on two heads i.e., one on a pronote and another on dealing. On 27-2-1971 an ex parte decree has been passed. On 3-9-1971, the defendants were served with notice in the execution petition. After coming to know of the execution petition the defendants on 4-9-1971 filed two interlocutory application I. A. No. 1909 of 1971 for the purpose of excusing the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, and I. A. No. 1910 of 1971 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27-2-1971. The trial Court dismissed both these applications. The defendants have filed C. M. A. 187 of 1972 against the decision in I. A. 1910 of 1971 and C. R. P. No. 1055 of 1972 against the decision in I. A. 1909 of 1971.2. Mr. Narayanaswami learned counsel for the appellants and the petition...
The Commissioner of H.R. and C.E., Madras Vs. Perarulala Ramanuja Jeer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad129
1. The appeal is by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Madras, from an order of Kailasam J., which quashed the appellant's order dated 7-7-1967. The first respondent, Sri Ethiraja Jeer, as the head of the Mutt at Sriperumbudur. Chingleput Dt. applied to the appellant claiming that in accordance with a resolution dated 18-12-1966, he was nominated as successor to Sri Thirumayyam Thiruvengada Ramanuja Jeer, who had abdicated and surrendered his office. On that basis, he wanted the Commissioner to appoint him as the religious trustee of the Sriperumbudur temple under clause (3) of the Scheme rules. The Commissioner dismissed that petition on the view that the scheme of management for the temple, which was settled in O.S. No. 30 of 1921, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, had been rendered inoperative by a notification dated 10-10-1938, under Chapter VI-A of Madras Act II of 1927 and the continuance thereof until 16-7-1966, and that the ...
C.P. Srinivasam Pillai Vs. Chellakumara Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad253; (1973)1MLJ258
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of the order in I. A. No. 150 of 1971 in O. S. 10 of 1969 wherein the Subordinate Judges, Erode, has stayed the suit O. S. No. 10 of 1969, under Sec. 10, C. P. Code. The facts of the case are ; Prior to the filing of O. S. No. 10 of 1969 wherein I. A. No. 150 of 1971 has been filed the petitioner herein filed O. S. No. 222 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode. In that suit, the petitioner herein claimed damages from the respondent herein for the years 1960-61 to 1965-66. That suit was decreed for Rs. 12,320 against the respondent herein. The respondent herein preferred A. S. 838 of 1968 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. The main contention of the respondent herein in that appeal is that he is a tenant and as such there is no question of claiming any damages from him as a trespasser. But, on the other hand, the petitioner herein asserts, that the respondent is a trespasser and is liable to pay damages...
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. H.H. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ17
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appeal is by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, from an order of Kailasam, J., which quashed the appellant's order dated 7th July, 1967. The first respondent, Sri Ethiraja Jeer, as the head of the Mutt at Sriperumbudur, Chingleput District, applied to the appellant claiming that in accordant with a resolution dated 18th December, 1966, he was nominated as successor to Sri Thirunayyan Thiruvengada Ramanuja Jeer, who had abdicated and surrendered his office. On that basis, they wanted the Commissioner to appoint him as the religious trustee of the Sriperumbadur temple under Clause (5) of the Scheme Rules. The Commissioner dismissed that petition on the view that the scheme of management for the temple, which was settled in O.S. No. 30 of 1921, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chingleput, had been rendered inoperative by a notification dated 10th October, 1938, under Chapter VI-A of Madras Act II of 1927 and t...
Varadaraja Gounder and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad278; (1973)1MLJ408
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. But for the long delay of nearly three years on the part of the appellants, we should have had no hesitation in quashing the land acquisition proceedings. The proceedings to acquire land to provide house-sites for Harijans were admittedly taken as early as 1960. But the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made only on 7-7-1966. At that point of time, suddenly the department thought that there was a grave urgency and on that view dispensed with the application of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and invoked Section 17. This was wholly an unjustified procedure. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that unless acquisition could not brook a delay of approximately two months or even three months in applying Section 5-A before the declaration under Section 6, there was no power to invoke the urgency provisions. There was evidently no urgency of that kind in this case and the department was not justified in invoking Section 17. We should have, therefor...
The State of Madras Vs. the South Indian Export Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC199(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As the point involved in all the above cases are the same, they are dealt with together. The respondents in all the five cases are the same. They were assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act in respect of certain transactions for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 under Section 16 and for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 under Section 12. In all these years, the respondents had been assessed as agents of their non-resident principal, the Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited, Calcutta, in respect of sales of paper said to have been effected by them. The respondents, however, contended before the assessing as well as the appellate authority that the sales of paper have been effected directly by their principal, the said paper mills, to the various purchasers in this State and that the mere fact that they have taken delivery of the consignment and distributed the same to the various purchasers will not make them sellers in respect of those sale transactions. The r...
D. Damodara Rao Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC255(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner in this case was assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the sales of charcoal at 2 per cent for the assessment year 1964-65. The matter was taken in appeal to the Tribunal and before the Tribunal it was contended that all the sales of charcoal by the petitioner are second sales and that, therefore, they are not liable to be taxed at all. According to the petitioner 'charcoal' will be included in the word 'coal' referred to in item 1 of Schedule II to the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1966] 17 S.T.C. 527 as also a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [19671] 19 S.T.C. 469 in support of his case that charcoal will be included in the term 'coal'. The Tribunal accepted the position that if charcoal comes within the word 'coal' then the as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »