Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad186; [1973]32STC274(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These revision petitions arise out of suits filed by the various plaintiffs, respondents in each of the revision petitions for recovery of amounts collected from them by the defendants in each of the suits as Central sales tax in respect of certain sales of arecanuts effected by the defendants to the plaintiffs who are dealers at Thiruvarur, Madras State. As all the above revision petitions raise the same question of law, they have to be dealt with together.2. The defendant in each of the suits is dealer in arecanuts at Shimoga in Mysore State. They have been selling arecanuts to the plaintiffs during the years 1961 to 1964. the defendants as sellers have been charging and collecting Central sales tax from the plaintiff on their sales of arecanuts on the basis that the transactions were inter-State sales attracting the levy of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The tax thus collected has been shown separately in the various invoices insured by the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad222; [1974]93ITR1(Mad); (1973)1MLJ116
1. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal filed by defendants 2 to 13 is whether the sales of the suit properties by the first defendant, which is a public limited company in favor of the second defendant firm of which the partners are defendants 3 to 13, were effected with intent to defeat or delay the Union of India and other creditors of the first defendant company. The Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras laid the suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act on its own behalf and on behalf of other creditors, if any, of the first defendant company for a declaration that the sale deed Ex. B-1 dated 27-2-1961 in respect of the plaint mentioned immovable properties and the sale of the movables properties by the first defendant company in favor of the second defendant firm were invalid and not operative and not binding on the plaintiff and other creditors of the first defendant company as having been made to defeat the ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad356; (1973)1MLJ18
ORDER1. To consider applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the town service route Komarapalayam to Erode Government Hospital the Regional Transport authority fixed the date of hearing as 17-8-1971 and granted the same to the petitioner having regard to the fact that it was found suitable and otherwise also it secured the highest marks as per the prescribed rules. In fact, two grants were made on the same date to the petitioner. The aggrieved persons appealed. One of the grants was confirmed, but the order of the Regional Transport authority granting a second permit to the petitioner was set aside on the sole ground that the person who signed the application under Rule 156(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, for the grant of the stage carriage permit cannot be said to be a person who had the requisite authority in law to sign for a private limited company such as the Coimbatore District Motor Thozhilalar Bus Service Pvt. Ltd, and that therefore the entire application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ110
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These Revision Petitions arise out of suits filed by the various plaintiffs, respondents in each of the revision petitions, for recovery of amounts collected from them by the defendants in each of the suits as Central Sales Tax in respect of certain sales of arecanuts effected by the defendants to the plaintiffs who are dealers at Tiruvarur, Madras State. As all the above revision petitions raise the same question of law, they have to be dealt with together.2. The defendant in each of the suits is a dealer in arecanuts at Shimoga in Mysore State. They have been selling arecanuts to the plaintiffs during the years 1961 to 1964. The defendants as sellers have been charging and collecting Central Sales Tax from the plaintiffs on their sales of arecanuts on the basis that the transactions were inter-State sales attracting the levy of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The tax thus collected has been shown separately in the various invoices issued by the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad14
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 750/- as and for damages in respect of a transistor. The plaintiff is a teacher employed in Olagappampalayam. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant and he was studying in the S.S.L.C. class in Olagappampalayam High School. On 25-5-1965 the first defendant stole the Phillips Model Transistor belonging to the plaintiff, who gave a complaint to the Thruchengode Police against the first defendant. The police, after investigation charged defendants 1 and 2 for offences under Section 454 and 380, I.P.C. The first defendant also gave a confessional statement. The first defendant was convicted under Section 454 and 380. I.P.C. The second defendant was also convicted but in the judgment is C.C. No. 1949 of 1965 it is stated that he was convicted under Section 380 or 411, I.P.C. When the transistor was returned to the plaintiff after the prosecution was over, he found it was not working. He gav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]91ITR138(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case owned movable and immovable properties. He was also running a motor bus service under the name and style of ' K. Ratna Motor Service '. He was also a partnerin a firm called ' Ratna Studio'. In respect of the valuation date, March 31, 1957, he filed a return under the Wealth-tax Act showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,42,692. The assessee had claimed, among other things, a deduction of Rs. 1,67,279 as representing the liability for payment of income-tax in respect of the assessment years 1955-56 to 1957-58. The Wealth-tax Officer held that this amount did not represent a final ascertained liability as on March 31, 1957, and as such it was not an allowable deduction. 2. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the said sum as well as other items which were disputed by him. We are not concerned in this reference with the other items of dispute. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed deduction in a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]31STC349(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a dealer in reptile skins. He reported a total turnover of Rs. 10,56,391.03 for the year 1962-63 and claimed exemption in relation to the entire turnover on the ground that it represented sales in the course of export. The assessing authority, after check of the accounts, found that the assessee had a total turnover of Rs. 12,91,408.31, made up of Rs. 12,64,483.42 relating to purchase of raw reptile skins, Rs. 26,330.90 relating to the purchase of tanning materials and Rs. 593.99 relating to the sales of tannery waste. He determined the taxable turnover of the assessee as Rs. 12,91,408.31 and assessed him at 2 per cent, on Rs. 12,65,077.41 and at one per cent, on Rs. 26,330.90. The assessee had contended before the assessing authority that the purchase of raw reptile skins would fall under item 52 of the First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and not under item 7(a) of the Second Schedule. According to the assessing auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad411
Ramamurti, J.1. This appeal which has been preferred by the plaintiffs is a useless one and devoid of substance. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted the suit. O. S. No. 65 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tanjore to establish their joint right of management along with the defendant in respect of certain charitable trust and its properties. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship between the parties:--(For genealogical tree see next page)Jambugaramalingam (hereinafter referred to as the founder) founded a trust consisting of several charities like feeding of Brahmins running a water-pandal etc. under a registered Will dated 19-6-1880 (the certified copy of which is marked as Exhibit A-1). He constituted his son, Subbu Pillai, who was then a minor aged about six years, as trustee, with a provision that during his minority Subbu Pillai's maternal grandfather should be the guardian of Subbu Pillai and manage the trust and its properties and hand over the management t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad159
1. This petitioner is W. P. No. 1947 of 1972 on the file of this court, who lost before Ramaprasada Rao, J., is the appellant herein. The appellant and the first respondent herein were lessees of a particular premises taken on lease in December, 1969. They applied for a license in C form under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and such a license was issued in that joint names of the appellant and the first respondent and it was valid till 25-8-1972. According to the appellant, there was an inter se arrangement between the appellant and the first respondent under which the first respondent was to run the theatre for a period of two years and enjoy the income therefrom and thereafter the appellant herein was to run the theatre and enjoy the income therefrom for a period of two years. The further case of the appellant was that the enjoyment of the first respondent came to an end on 6-12-1971, and thereafter he took over management of the theatre; that when the license was to e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]92ITR31(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This is a petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from pursuing the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner was a partnership firm which was dissolved on 20th March, 1964. For the assessment year 1960-61, the petitioner filed its return of income along with a trading and profit and loss account. The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of handloom goods, and for the purpose of manufacture, it had imported 4,310 Ibs. of art silk for the value of Rs. 20,772 under an import licence. At the time of the assessment, the Income-tax Officer appears to have, asked the petitioner to furnish information about the quantity and the value of the imported art silk used in the manufacture. The petitioner had furnished the above information required by the Income-tax Officer. This is clear from certain entries made by the Income-tax Officer i...
Tag this Judgment!