Chennai Court February 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.
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC77(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer in machinery, electrical goods, dairy products and tractor parts. In respect of the assessment year 1964-65 the petitioner filed returns under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, admitting a total turnover of Rs. 1,02,82,757.73 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 97,74,633.85. After the usual check of the accounts, the assessment was completed by the assessing authority on a total turnover of Rs. 1,07,19,126.63 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 99,19,615.09. In the return under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the petitioner returned a total turnover of Rs. 2,19,17,636.68, and a taxable turnover of Rs. 41,47,262.72, claiming an exemption, inter alia, on a turnover of Rs. 65,47,342.29, being the sale value of the goods which had moved from its factory at Bombay to either Tamil Nadu or other neighbouring States of Mysore, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. This turnover of Rs. 65,47,342.29 is said to have been shown in the returns because the money transaction...
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC96(Mad)
ORDER 182 MICK GOODS SOON.The above message when decoded should read as 'Our Order No. 182- despatch at once by motor lorry goods-Confirm as order is urgent.' We hope you would have by now arranged for the despatch of above materials. Kindly confirm.22. This letter indicates that the seller is obliged to despatch the goods as per the terms of the original order. Another letter dated 28th April, 1965, written by the assessee to the office of the buyer-company at Jullundur is as follows :We are pleased to advise you that we have already despatched your order No. 28 in full through M/s. New Howrah Transport Co. vide their way bill 1393 of 24th April, 1965. In this connection we confirm having wired you on 24th April as per copy enclosed.Assuring you of our best services always.23. Yet another letter written by the assessee dated 11th May, 1965, to M/s. Tyresoles Concessionaries (P.) Ltd., Bombay, runs as follows :We thank you for your letter No. M-32 : 178 dated 6th May, 1965, enclosing, ...
The India Cements Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC516(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madurai, dated 26th December, 1968. The petitioners' firm were assessed to Central sales tax by an order dated 30th November, 1961, on the following turnover : Rs. 15,64,228.74 at one per cent., Rs. 11,89,148.49 at five per cent. These figures were arrived at after taking into consideration that for an amount of Rs. 4,65,258.02, D forms were produced along with the assessees' reply to the pre-assessment notice issued to them. But this amount included a sum of Rs. 6,502.28 which represented the sales tax collected by the assessee. On noticing this mistake, the assessing officer, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, issued a notice to the petitioners on 29th December, 1961, under Rule 5(9) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, proposing to deduct a sum of Rs. 6,502.28 from the turno...
Rm. A.R. A.R. R.M. A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. the Union of India (U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ439
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. W.P. No. 3544 of 1970. - Over an extent of 122.93 acres of land in Athipet North a licence to manufacture salt - therein for a period of 25 years, commencing from 1st November, 1953, was granted in favour of Smt. Udaya Nagarathinammal. On a due application for transfer of the licence the same was transferred in favour of one L. Arunachalam Chettiar. At or about that time L. Arunachalam Chettiar was in need of finance and therefore he associated the petitioner with him for financing the project of manufacture and sale of salt in the factory. In consideration of such financial help rendered, the petitioner expressed his desire to become a joint licensee. In consequence thereto and on representations made for the purpose, the petitioner was recognised, on 3rd September, 1959, as joint licensee for the manufacture of salt in the factory along with L. Arunachalam Chettiar.2. Presumably in view of the advances made by the petitioner he wanted to safeguard his in...
Mahe Beach Trading Company, by Partner B. Kutti Hassan Haji Vs. the Un ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ213
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner owns an Esso patrol pump in Mahe, in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The petitioner says that he is basing assessed to sales tax on his sales of motor spirit by the Government of Pondicherry under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. On the 20th March, 1970, he received a notice from the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue)-cum-Receiver, Municipal, Mahe, stating that in accordance with the deliberation of the Municipal Council, dated 7th August, 1969, duly approved by the Government, the Mayor, Mahe, has taken an Arrete on 13th January, 1970, imposing a municipal tax of 5 paise per litre of petrol or diesel oil sold by the petitioner, and called upon the petitioner to submit particulars regarding the quantity of petrol sold during the period involved and also 'informed him that he was obliged to disclose in the future the quantity of petrol and diesel sold by him to the appropriate authority. The petitioner was aggrieved by the notice as w...
R.V. Ramaswamy Naidu Vs. the Election Court of Sattur (D.M.C. Sattur) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Mad330
ORDER1. The petitioner was one of the candidates who intended to contest the election for the office of President when such a vacancy arose in the village panchayat of Rosalpatti, Sattur taluk. What the second respondent who was also contesting in the election did was, he proposed the third respondent. As ill-luck would have it, the third respondent's nomination paper was scrutinised and accepted by the Chief Presiding Officer. But when it came to the turn of the second respondent, his nomination paper and rejected because he already proposed a candidate for the office and according to the Chief Presiding Officer no voter intending to stand for election shall sign a nomination paper as proposer to some other candidate. On this ground, his nomination was rejected. The election went through and the petitioner was returned to the officer. The second respondent who nomination was rejected, as stated above, filed an election petition to the Election Court (District Munsif Court) Sattur, sta...
R.B. Ramaswamy Naidu Vs. the Election Court of Sattur (D.M.C. Sattur) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ74
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner was one of the candidates who intended to contest the election for the office of President when such a vacancy arose in the Village panchayat of Rosalpatti, Sathur taluk. What the second respondent who was also contesting in the election did was, he proposed the third respondent. As ill-luck would have it, the third respondent's nomination paper was scrutinised and accepted by the Chief Presiding Officer. But when it came to the turn of the second respondent, his nomination paper was rejected because he already proposed a candidate for the office and according to the Chief Presiding Officer no voter intending to stand for election shall sign a nomination paper as proposer to some other candidate. On this ground, his nomination was rejected. The election Went through and the petitioner was returned to the office. The second respondent whose nomination was rejected, as stated above, filed an election petition to the Election Court (District Mu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.S. Kuppa Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1972
Reported in: [1972]85ITR633(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These two cases are connected and they relate to assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, respectively. The assessee is common in both the cases. He was carrying on transport business, in addition to running a rice and flour mill and a cinema theatre. In this case, we are concerned with the assessee's business in transport. The assessee's account books relating to his transport business were burnt in a fire accident on November 19, 1958, and this fact has not been disputed by the revenue at any stage. In view of the loss of account books, the assessee prepared ledgers without day books and made out a profit and loss account for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 based on such ledgers. Inthe ledgers prepared by him, he had provided for a reserve of development rebate for various years from 1955-56. For the assessment years in question, the assessee claimed development rebate under Section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer, while considering t...
V. Manickam Pillai Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1488
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Manickam Pillal, P. W. I. (Complainant) against the order of the Court of Session. West Thanjayur Division, Thanjavur, acquitting Kaliammal alias Kalimuthu on an offence under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The accusation against her is that on 24-11-1969 at about 7 p. m. at Orathanad she administered some substance with intent to cause miscarriage of one Padmavathi in the house of the 2nd accused Solai Ammal. which caused the death of the said Padmavathi, The 2nd accused was acquitted by the trial Judge.3. Manickam Pillai (P. W. 1) and his wife Rathinathammal (P. W. 5), his son Thangavelu (P. W. 4). his daughter-in-law Padmavathi (deceased), and his pangalis are living in the same house at Orathanad. Padmavathi was the wife of P. W. 4. They have got two daughters. Padmavathi was pregnant (four months) in November 1969. On 24-11-1969 at about 7.30 P. M. Rethinathammal, P W. 5 told her husband P. W. 1 that Padmavathi was complaini...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›