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.
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division Vs. K.M. Tho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC529(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The respondent herein is a dealer in firewood and he submitted a return showing taxable turnover of Rs. 1,36,257.99 for the assessment year 1961-62. But, before the final assessment could be made, there was an inspection of his place of business, as a result of which certain anamath account books were recovered. Based on the entries in the said anamath accounts, the assessing officer rejected the account books of the respondent and determined, to the best of his judgment, the taxable turnover to be at Rs. 2,37,548.48, thereby making an addition of Rs. 1,01,290.49 to the returned turnover. At the time of making that assessment, the assessing officer did not invoke his power under Section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act for levying a penalty for submission of an incorrect and false return.2. The order of the assessing authority was later revised by the Deputy Commissioner by enhancing the taxable turnover of the respondent to Rs. 3,00,000 and this resulted in an...
A.B.K. Kaliappa Nadar Vs. S.V.K.R. Amirthavalavandammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ126
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The matter comes up before us on a reference by Kailasam, J. The petitioner is the tenant and the proceeding related to eviction. The point before Kailasam, J., turned on whether the petitioner was served with sufficient notice. It is on record that a registered letter was sent by the landlord to the tenant at his correct address. The letter was, however, returned with the endorsement 'not found'. The postman, it is made to appear by the endorsement, called at the petitioner's residence thrice and every time he was not found. The first appellate Court found that, since the landlord had taken notice to the proper address, it should follow that a valid notice is quit had been served. The Additional District Judge, in disposing of the revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, accepted that finding but gave additional reasons in support of the finding. He said that although the landlord had stated in the petition for eviction ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›