Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad458
Ramamurti, J. 1. The land of the appellants an extent of 1.83 acres in Sorathur village, Tiruvannamalai taluk, was sought to be acquired for house sites to the Harijans of Kallayee village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 18-3-1970 and notices under Section 4(1) and 5-A of the Act were also served on the pattadars i.e., the appellants. There was an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and before completion of the proceedings the appellants filed W.P. 1662 of 1970 for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the State from proceeding further with the acquisition of the land in question. The validity and the bona fides of the acquisition were questioned on several grounds but the only point which was stressed before Palaniswami J. who disposed of the writ petition and before us in the writ appeal is that the object of the acquisition offends Art. 17 of the Constitution of India, which provides that untouchability is abolished and its pract...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad277; (1973)1MLJ176
Palaniswamy, J. 1. The Madras State Bhoodan Yagna Board, represented by its Chairman, the 8th defendant in O. S. 31 of 1963, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, is the appellant. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and the fourth plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. The suit was laid for partition of the plaint properties into four shares and for allotment of three shares to plaintiffs 1 to 3 with provision for maintenance of the fourth plaintiff and for the marriage expenses of the daughter of the first defendant. The first defendant executed three gift deeds, viz., Exs. B-1 to B-3, all on 29-10-1954 in favor of the Bhoodan Yagna started by Acharya Vinobaji in respect of certain family properties. The main contest was regarding the validity and binding nature of these gift deeds. The plaintiffs contended that these gift deeds were not binding upon them and that plaintiffs 1 to 3 were entitled to their shares in the items covered by these gift deeds. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]32STC357(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The only point that arises in this appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue passed for the assessment year 1961-62 is as to whether the appellants, who acted as the selling agents of an agriculturist-principal, can be said to be 'dealers' in respect of sales effected by them as such selling agents to themselves and assessed on such sales. The question has to be answered in the affirmative in view of the decisions of this court in State of Madras v. T.C.M. Society Ltd. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 760 and Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Anantharama Nadar and Sons [1970] 25 S.T.C. 276 and the recent decision in C.V. Ramaswamy Gounder & Sons, Erode v. State of Madras represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Eroded T.C. No. 67 of 1967 reported at p. 350 supra.2. One other point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there are certain instructions issued by the Government and the Board of Revenue to the effect that when selling agents of agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ517
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The land of the appellants, an extent of r 83 acres in Sorathur village, Tiruvannamalai taluk, was sought to be acquired for house-sites to the Harijans of Kallayee village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 18th March, 1970 and notices Under sections 4(1) and 5(A) of the Act were also served on the pattadars, i.e., the appellants. There was an enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act and, before completion of the proceedings, the appellants filed writ petition No. 1662 of 1970 for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the State from proceeding further with the acquisition of the land in question. The validity and the bona fides of the acquisition were questioned on several grounds, but the only point which was stressed before Palaniswami, J., who disposed of the writ petition, and before us in the writ appeal is that the object of the acquisition offends Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which provides that unto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad132; (1973)1MLJ3
ORDER1. Premises No. 26 Kolandaivelu St., Purasawalkam, Madras, was under Government tenancy. The petitioner is admittedly residing in a rented building. On 7-7-1969 the petitioner applied for the release of the premises for her own use and occupation. When that request was being enquired into, the then allottee vacated and handed over possession of the premises on 24-7-1969. The premises was once again offered for allotment on 25-7-1969. Pending a decision on the application for release, which was by then pending with the appropriate authority, it is said that the Accommodation Deputy Tahsildar inspected and reported that the petitioner was indeed residing in a rented premises. But, the Accommodation Controller, as is seen from the affidavit, rejected the request for release on the ground that Government servants were finding it hard to got accommodation by private lease in that locality. Based on such recommendation and observation of the Accommodation Controller, the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]31STC103(Mad)
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This reference by the District Magistrate, of course, raises an interesting question. What happened in this case is this : There were certain amounts in the deposit of the court to the credit of C.C. No. 1739 of 1965. One Chandrasekaran applied for the refund of that amount claiming that amount as due to him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. When the application of Chandrasekaran was pending, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Arcot, sent a notice to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cheyyar, in form No. B-6, with a copy to Chandrasekaran (which is disputed now) requesting the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to withhold the money due to Chandrasekaran and pay the same to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. It also appears that subsequently after the notice was sent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer also preferred a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate claiming the amount towards Government dues. The petition filed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]92ITR384(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner is the same in all these writ petitions and he has prayed for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the four assessment orders of the same date, December 31, 1963, passed under the Travancore Excess Profits Tax Act, 1120 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Travancore Act ') for the period from 19-8-1118 to 18-8-1121. The assessments in question are attacked by the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) the Travancore Excess Profits Tax Act of 1120 had been repealed in the year 1946 and that, therefore, the assessments made under the provisions of that repealed Act were without jurisdiction, (2) Section 13 of the Finance Act of 1950 cannot have the effect of saving the Travancore Excess Profits Tax Act of 1120, (3) even if the Travancore Excess Profits Tax Act of 1120 can be put in force for the period anterior to 19^6, the competent authorities to levy the tax are not the Union authorities but only those authorities constituted under the Travancore Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]91ITR142(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This matter arises under the Gift-tax Act. The petitioners' father purported to execute a settlement deed dated April 25, 1963, in their favour. Several items of properties in two different villages were given to the petitioners. This settlement was treated by the Gift-tax Officer as a gift coming within the purview of the Gift-tax Act and an order of assessment was passed after giving notice to the petitioners' father as donor. It appears that the petitioners' father did not appear in pursuance of the notice issued to him and the Gift-tax Officer passed an order of assessment holding that the settlement executed by the father of the petitioners on April 25, 1963, was a taxable gift. On that basis he levied a gift-tax of Rs. 6,025. Subsequently efforts were made to recover the taxfrom the donor, but, as the amount could not be recovered from him, proceedings were initiated by the Tax Recovery Officer against the petitioners as donees. 2. At this stage the petitioners h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]32STC155(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The appellants herein are dealers in cardamom at Bodinayakanur, Madurai. They were finally assessed on 25th June, 1962, under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the year 1958-59 on a total taxable turnover of Rs. 20,31,479.60 as against Rs. 9,49,485.26 returned by them. The addition made by the assessing authority was made up of (1) turnover of Rs. 12,29,750.08 claimed to be purchases of cardamom outside the State but held by the assessing authority to be purchases within the State of Madras on the basis of the investigation made by the special departmental staff and (2) a turnover of Rs. 41,448 amounting to three times of the value of the stock discrepancy noticed on inspection. The appellants went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who reduced the total addition from Rs. 12,29,750.08 to Rs. 14,420.2. The Board of Revenue, exercising its special powers Under Section 34 of the Act, called for and examined the relevant assessment and appellate re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]32STC207(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.1. We think that this petition is covered by the decision of a Division Bench to which one of us was a party, in Raj Brothers Agencies v. The Board of Revenue (W.P. No. 4629 of 1965) [1972] 30 S.T.C. 410. The point is whether, Under Section 25 of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939, the power of the Board of Revenue could be invoked on an application or it is confined to the Board itself invoking the power suo motu. We do not have the slightest doubt that, where a power is vested in a public authority, as Under Section 25 of the Act, to call for and examine the record of any order passed by a lower authority, such power could either be invoked suo motu or on an application by a party aggrieved. The substance of the matter is that the investiture is by the Legislature of the power of revision in the particular authority. For instance, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure vests in the High Court revisional power in terms identical with those of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!