Chennai Court July 1972 Judgments
K. Vasudevan Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC210(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, against the suo motu orders passed by the Board of Revenue under Section 34 of the Act. The assessee in this case was assessed originally for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 on the basis of the returns filed by him. Subsequently, in or about October, 1964, the residence of the assessee was inspected and certain anamath account books and slips were recovered pertaining to the above years in question. These anamath accounts were scrutinised by the assessing authority in the presence of the assessee and after detailed investigation, the suppressed turnover was determined by the assessing authority in respect of each of the years and a show cause notice was issued under Section 16 proposing to revise the original assessments. This show cause notice required the assessee to file his objections within a period of five days. The assessee received the notice but, instead of filing t...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Rajam Ammal Vs. V.N. Swaminathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad152
1. O.S. No. 51 of 1969 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, was instituted for a declaration that the sale deed dated 20-11-1969 executed by Subramania Pillai in favour of the fourth defendant represented by the third defendant, were not binding on the plaintiff and for recovery of the suit Items 1 to 13 from the 1st defendant and Item 14 from the fifth defendant and Items 15 to 19 from the second defendant. The plaint properties were valued by the plaintiff in the suit in the trial court on the market value as on the date of the plaint and not on the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. It is against the decree passed in that suit, the second defendant in so far as Items 15 to 19 are concerned had purported to file an appeal, he sought to value the subject-matter of the appeal not on the basis of the market value of the items concerned, but on the basis of the consideration recited in the document cancelled by the trial court. The office pointed out t...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Rajam Ammal Vs. V.N. Swaminathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ334
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. O.S. No. 51 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, Was instituted for a declaration that the sale deed dated 20th November, 1969, executed by one Subramania Pillai in favour of the first defendant and the sale deed dated 20th January, 1962, executed by Subramania Pillai in favour of the fourth defendant represented by the third defendant, were not binding on the plaintiff and for recovery of the suit items 1 to 13 from the 1st defendant and item 14 from the fifth defendant and items 15 to 19 from the second defendant. The plaint properties were valued by the plaintiff in the suit in the trial Court on the market value as on the date of the plaint and not on the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. It is against the decree passed in the suit, the second defendant in so far as items 15 to 19 are concerned had purported to file an appeal on the file of this Court. In this appeal, he sought to value the subject matter of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nagammal Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC607(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. A short but interesting question has arisen in this writ petition. The petitioner is the mother and guardian of her minor daughter, in whose favour the petitioner's husband and the minor's father settled a certain property in and by a registered deed of settlement dated 11th July, 1969, registered on 1st August, 1969. The petitioner's husband, one K.R. Krishnappa Chettiar, hereinafter referred to as Mr. Chettiar, was a dealer within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment years 1966-67 to 1S69-70, Mr. Chettiar was assessed to tax on his dealings and such assessments were completed by November, 1969. As the assessment orders themselves were completed only in November, 1969, it follows that no demand for payment of tax under such assessment orders could have been issued prior to the deed of settlement referred to above. But after the property was settled by Mr. Chettiar in favour of his minor daughter, the notice dated 12th Febru...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Mills Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC166(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. In these three writ petitions, a common question arises. The three petitions relate to orders of revision made by the assessing officer said to be in exercise of his powers Under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The years of assessment are 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. As the facts are almost similar except for the difference in the numerals, I shall refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 1630 of 1970.2. The case of the revenue is that for the assessment year 1966-67, a certain turnover has escaped assessment. The petitioner has some depots particularly in Calcutta and Bombay. But it carries on business in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner-mills was originally assessed to Central sales tax by an order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Singanallur Division, Coimbatore, on 14th December, 1967. From the records it is seen that the assessing officer went into the account books, the sale...
Tag this Judgment!Taluq Vaisya Vannia Chekku Tholilalar Society Vs. the State of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC205(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is claimed that some of its members actually do business in maintaining and extruding oil from country chekkus. They were having the privilege of an exemption from paying eithev the purchase tax or the sales tax on the purchase of groundnuts, or sale of oil manufactured out of such country chekkus for a considerable length of time. But by reason of certain malpractices adopted by the manufacturers processing oil through expellers and rotaries, the Government modified the privilege granted to the country chekku-owners' and made the said exemption conditional upon certain events. This was passed with a view to check evasion of tax. It is this Government Order dated 1st November, 1969, that is challenged in this writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that the withdrawal of the privilege enjoyed by users of country chekkus in the matter of the purchase tax and the sales tax already referred to, ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Parthasarathi, Proprietor, Sathivilas Bus Service, Porayar and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad76
1. This batch of Writ Petitions relates to the validity of the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriages (Acquisition) Act, (Act XXXVII of 1971). The petitioner in W.P. No. 395 of 1972 is a fleet operator running the bus service in the name of Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service holding 52 stage carriage permits as on 19-6-1971, while according to him he had transferred 24 out of the said 52 permits in favour of other persons for consideration between 28-5-1971 and 18-6-1971 but that the joint applications for transfer have been kept pending without passing orders and that if the transfers had been given effect to, his fleet strength will be below 50 permits, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the above Act against him. W.P. Nos. 409, 411, 412, 421, 422, 434, 435 and 452 of 1972 are filed by some of the transferees of the permits from the petitioner in the other two Writ Petitions, seeking a Writ of Mandamus restraining the res...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Adaikappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR90(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. As the question of law involved in both the references is the same, they are dealt with together. 2. One Messrs. G.V. Govindaswami Naidu and Company, a firm of four partners consisting of all the respondents in T. C. No. 326 of 1966, and the first respondent in T. C. No. 314 of 1966, was the managing agent of Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd., Udumalpet, hereinafter referred to as ' the company ', up to the assessment year 1959-60. The four partners were also the shareholders as well as the directors of the said Venkatesa Mills Ltd. Subsequently, the firm was reconstituted under a partnership deed datedDecember 11, 1959, with fourteen partners including the above four persons who continued to be the shareholders as well as directors of the company. 3. The company in its assessment had claimed allowance for the expenses incurred by it during the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63 for the maintenance of its motor cars. The Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore, who made the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatasubramaniam and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR220(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for decision:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the four new buses put on road after December 31, 1957?'2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in various businesses including the running of bus service. During the accounting year ended March 31, 1958, it had purchased seven new buses, of which four were put on, the road after December 31, 1957. In respect of the bus service business it filed a return on February 26, 1959, in which depreciation totalling Rs. 2,00,252 was claimed by the assessee. This included development rebate on seven new buses. The total development rebate in respect of the seven new busesclaimed was Rs. 62,216, out of which a sum of Rs. 35,727 related to the development rebate on the four new buses put on the road after December 31, 1957. The Income-tax Officer rejected the cla...
Tag this Judgment!H.J. Dorairaj Vs. Viswanatha Rupa and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad135; (1973)1MLJ394
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Maharajan, J., dismissing Appln. No 1200 of 1970 in C. S. No. 135 of 1967. Though the decision in the appeal does not turn upon the facts of this case, it is desirable to set out the facts for the purpose of understanding as to how this appeal arises. The appellant herein was the first defendant in C. V. 135 of 1967. A Greek ship "s. s. Stamatis", which was caught in the cyclone of November, 1966, ran aground opposite to the Marina at Madras. The appellant herein agreed to purchase the ship from Messrs. Diana Maritime Corporation, the owners thereof for Rupees seven lakhs and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,750/- towards the sale price. Being unable to pay the balance of the sale price, he entered into negotiations with the owners of the ship, who agreed to reduce the sale price to Rupees 3,30,000/-, as well as to adjust the deposit made by him towards the agreed sale price. He had hardly two days left for payment of the balance and therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »