Chennai Court January 1973 Judgments
Sri Lakshmi Machine Works Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC407(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Board of Revenue cancelling the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring the order of the assessing authority levying a penalty of Rs. 12,579 Under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessees are manufacturers of textile machinery. They had imported asbestos sheets worth Rs. 96,756.65 from outside the State and had issued C forms in respect of the said purchase of asbestos sheets. The assessing authority took the view that the registration certificate issued to the assessees by the registering authority constitued Under that Act did not enable them to issue C form certificates in respect of asbestos sheets and that the issue of C form certificates by the assessees was Under a misrepresentation that they are entitled to purchase asbestos sheets Under the registration certificates issued to them. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 10A and levied the penalty holding that th...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand Rajkumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC78(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the suo motu order passed by the Board of Revenue levying for the first time a penalty of Rs. 22,665, which, according to the Board of Revenue, the assessing officer should have levied under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, while making the assessment. In the proceedings for assessment, the assessee's account books were rejected on the basis of certain anamath books recovered from the assessee's place of business and a best judgment assessment was made. The said best judgment assessment resulted in an addition of a sum of Rs. 7,60,500 to the turnover of Rs. 9,99,449.46 returned by the assessee. At the time of making the best judgment assessment under Section 12(2), the assessing authority had not passed any order under Section 12(3). Even in the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not consider the question of penalty leviab...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Fairmacs Trading and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1973
Reported in: [1975]35STC176(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessees are dealers in ships stores. During the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 they imported goods from foreign countries, and as soon as the goods were landed in the Madras Harbour they were kept in bonded warehouses and on receipt of orders from ships' masters, they sold the goods to the outgoing ships. The assessees, however, had not registered themselves as dealers and they had not filed any return, since according to them, the sales effected by them from bonded warehouses were not taxable for the reason that they were in the course of import. The assessing authority, however, took the view that the sales effected by the assessees from the bonded warehouses to the outgoing ships were taxable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, as they were effected after the course of import had ended, and in that view he assessed the respondents for the year 1964-65 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 35,674.93 and for the year 1965-66 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 65,150.9...
Tag this Judgment!A. Malayalam Pillai and anr. Vs. Malayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ126
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of Veeraswami, J., (as he then was) in Second Appeal No. 548 of 1961. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 109 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The two plaintiffs in the suit are one Malayalam Pillai and one Thangavelu Pillai while the sole defendant is one Ponnusami Pillai. All the three of them viz., the two plaintiffs and the sole defendant, are the sons of one Appavu Pillai. The dispute relates to properties originally owned by one Karuppanna Pillai who is the paternal uncle of the abovesaid Appavu Pillai. Appavu Pillai's father Marudanayakam Pillai is still alive and this Marudanayakam Pillai is the brother of Karuppanna Pillai, the original owner of the suit properties. Karuppanna Pillai had no issue. It is common ground that Appavu Pillai, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant, was the foster-son of Karuppanna Pillai, the testator. The said Karuppan...
Tag this Judgment!Lipton (India) Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC194(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The only question that arises in this tax case is as to whether the. assessee is entitled to delete a sum of Rs. 3,94,543.50 from the turnover as determined by the authorities on the ground that the said sum represented the sales tax collections made. The assessee's claim was rejected by the assessing authority and the said sum was also treated as part of the turnover and brought to charge under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee's appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having failed, there was a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that factually the assessee has charged an inclusive price for the goods sold by him without separating the sales tax from the contract price and that even otherwise the legal position was clear that the sales tax collected formed part of the turnover as defined under the Act. This view of the Tribunal has been challenged before us. The assessee is a dealer selling tea all over India. It is o...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyani Oil Mills Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC542(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a manufacturer and dealer in groundnut oil. For the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, he was assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 5,19,349.92 and Rs. 4,98,647.59 respectively by the assessing authority. In making those assessments, the assessing authority made certain additions towards suppression of sales of groundnut oil and also the purchases of groundnuts to the turnover returned by the assessee in respect of both the years. The assessee was aggrieved against the additions made to the taxable turnover returned by him in respect of both the years and went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Having failed in the appeals, he approached the Tribunal by filing the further appeals. The Tribunal also sustained the additions made by the assessing authority to the taxable turnover returned by the assessee in respect of the years in question. In these revisions, the orders of the Tribunal in respect of both the assessment y...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Mettur Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC239(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The State is the petitioner in all these cases and it canvasses the correctness of the common order of the Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 in relation to the same assessee, Mettur Industries Limited. In the original assessments under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, turnovers relating to canteen sales effected by the assessee were not included on the ground that they are not taxable. Similarly, turnovers of Rs. 65,75,320.35 in 1959-60, of Rs. 59,82,489.09 in 1960-61 and of Rs. 87,30,321.58 in 1961-62 were also exempted on the ground that they represented inter-State purchases of cotton not taxable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. Subsequent to the original assessment, the assessing authority invoked its power under Section 16 of the Act and brought in the turn over relating to canteen sales on the ground that they had escaped assessment in all the three years in q...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ503
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 3138 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, who lost before the trial Judge as well as before the first appellate Judge, is the appellant herein. The facts lie within a very narrow compass and there is not much controversy about them. The second respondent herein, who is carrying on business in synthetic stones under the name and style of Jatin Diamond Company, sent a registered parcel of synthetic diamonds of the value Rs. 1,444 from Madras to Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd., Mauritius, on 29th August, 1964. The said parcel was registered at the General Post Office, First Line Beach, Madras, on 29th August, 1964, bearing postal receipt No. 356. The second respondent had insured the said parcel with the first respondent under an open policy by certificate of the same date for a sum of Rs. 1,444. The parcel'. was not delivered to the addressee and there was correspondence between the postal department and the second respondent her...
Tag this Judgment!P. Chandrasekharan Vs. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ387
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner in these petitions is the Secretary of the Bar Association of Pondicherry. When the Pondicherry State was part of the French Settlements in India, persons intending to practise the profession of law were governed by certain regulations contained in the Arrete dated 22nd June, 1932. I shall presently refer to the same. The petitioner's complaint is that the second respondent in each of these two petitions, though having the requisite legal qualification to practise as an advocate, yet, he not having taken the initiative of enrolling himself as a legal practitioner entitled either to plead or to plead and act in accordance with the Arrete as above, cannot by the mere accidental circumstance of his having been in Government service at the time when the Advocates Act of 1961 was extended to the State of Pondicherry, seek the assistance of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, which is the first respondent in these petitions, for the purpose of being en...
Tag this Judgment!B.E. Kaliyaperumal Nattar Vs. the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms), T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad389; (1973)2MLJ95
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This appeal raises the question as to the validity of a sale of an extent of 2 acres and 32 cents comprised in S. No. 40/5 and made on 14-5-1964 in favor of the appellant. The vendor filed a return under Madras Act 58 of 1961 on 15-7-1963, disclosing an extent of 3 acres and 91 cents as surplus out of 4 acres and 94 cents covered by survey field No. 40/5 in Bishandarkoil village, Lalgudi-Taluk. A draft statement was published, as required by Section 10 on 29-1-1964, and the final statement under Section 12 followed on 28-1-1965. A notice of the final statement was served on the vendor on 29-11-1965. An appeal arising from it failed on 10-6-1966. On 5-10-1966 notification under Section 18(1) was made and, on 13-10-1966, the vesting of the surplus was proclaimed under Section 18(2). We may mention that, on 9-3-1964, the Supreme Court struck down the Act itself as violative of the fundamental rights relating to property. Then came, with effect from 20-6-1964, 17th Amen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »