Chennai Court December 1976 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.
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC130(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. All these three revision petitions are by the same petitioner and they relate to three different assessment years, namely, 1966-67 to 1968-69. The assessments were under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed exemption from tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the turnover in question. With regard to the facts, the Tribunal states as follows:The appellants purchased raw hides and skins within the State, tanned them and sold them inter-State. No doubt, in respect of the locally purchased raw hides and skins, they have suffered tax at the purchase point as per item 7(a) of the Second Schedule. It is not the case of the appellants that in respect of the inter-State sales in question they are with reference to the raw hides and skins. The inter-State sales in question are only with reference to the sales of tanned hides and skins. It is not the case of the appellants that the tanned hides and skins sold inter-State had suffered tax as tanned hides...
V. Govindarajan and Brother Vs. the Government of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC169(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. Three points were in dispute before the Tribunal, namely, (1) whether the rejection of the petitioner's accounts was proper (2) whether the assessment of tax on the sales of leather cases for transistors as accessory was proper and (3) whether the assessment of tax on the sales of leakproof battery cells as spare parts of transistors instead of as electrical goods was correct The Tribunal decided all these three points against the petitioners and hence the present tax revision petition.2. As far as the first point is concerned, having regard to the materials available, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not pursue the same.3. Consequently, what remains for consideration are points Nos. (2) and (3). As far as the second point is concerned, it is admitted that leather cases were manufactured and sold as suitable for particular transistors. Item No. 5 of the First Schedule to th...
Surya Fertilisers and Chemicals Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC538(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The common facts that arise in T.C. Nos. 117 and 118 of 1973 are as follows : In the original assessment the petitioner herein claimed that 'technical grade urea', which it purchased from Neyveli Lignite Corporation and, subsequently sold, constituted chemical fertilisers coming within the scope of entry 21(3) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, consequently, the sales by it being second sales were not liable to tax. This contention was accepted by the assessing authority and, therefore, the turnover referable thereto was excluded. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under Section 16 of the Act and the turnover was included. The petitioner put forward two contentions against the reopening. One was, Section 16 did not warrant such reopening of the assessment under such circumstances and, secondly, that 'technical grade urea' was nothing but urea coming within the scope of entry 21(3) of the Firs...
Madras Rubber Factory Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1978]41STC55(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Madras, dated 21st September, 1976, passed in exercise of suo motu powers of revision under Section 34 of the Act. The matter lies within a very narrow compass. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road III, assessed the appellants by an order dated 26th December, 1969. This order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer was revised by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his powers under Section 32 of the Act on 14th September, 1971. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was given effect to by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road III, by proceedings dated 22nd September, 1971. The Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Madras, by notice dated 31st August, 1976, called upon the appellants to show cause why the order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road III, dat...
L.K. Shaik Mohd. Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR808(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two tax cases are more or less connected, in the sense that Tax Case No. 346 of 1970 relates to the assessmentyear 1958-59 and Tax Case No. 348 of 1970 relates to the assessment year1959-60. In each of these cases, a similar question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the question is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty for each of the assessment years in both the tax cases is justified in law. The assessee is a firm of jewellers. 2. We shall now take up T.C. No. 346 of 1970. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal found that there was a concealment and a non-disclosure of assessable income by the assessee. The Tribunal in its final order of assessment observed that the two additions made were reasonable and were warranted in the circumstances. According to it, the explanation given by the assessee that it secured the funds for the purpose of purchasing gold from...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Sahasranamam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR493(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), referred the following question for the opinion of this court;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the income from the property bearing Door No. 189/191, Ramnad Road, Madurai, from the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 ?'2. The assessee was the owner of property bearing Door No. 189/191, Ramnad Road, Madurai. On March 6, 1961, he executed a will, the relevant portion of which dealing with this property, reads as follows :'As regards the house property bearing Door No. 189/191, Ramnad Road, Madurai, it is my desire that the property should belong to the Hindu undivided family of which I am the karta, the other coparceners being my sons. I have no separate interest over the property except as that of a Hindu undivided family. On my death my wife sha...
Padmavathi and Bheema Raja Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ223
Koshal, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, viz., Writ Petitions Nos. 746 and 889 of 1972, in each of which there is a single petitioner who challenges the acquisition of his land situated in Coimbatore town. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by a notification, dated the 15th of April, 1970 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act). Notices of the proposed acquisition were published in conformity with Rule (1) of the rules framed by the Tamil Nadu Government under Section 55(1) of the Act, but no notice thereof was served individually on either of the petitioners and it is contended on their behalf that the acquisition proceedings are void for want of such notices which it was incumbent on the Collector to serve as per instruction (1) contained in paragraph 9 of Standing Order 90 issued by the Board of Revenue. That instruction states:(1) Besides pu...
Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR454(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The assessee is a company carrying on business of distribution of electrical energy under a licence issued under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 57 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule and the Seventh Schedule shall be deemed to be incorporated in the licence of every licensee, not being a local authority. The Sixth Schedule to the Act contains certain financial principles and their application. Paragraph III of the Schedule provides that there shall be created from existing reserves or from the revenues of the undertaking a reserve to be called 'contingencies reserve'. Paragraph IV(1), which deals with the annual appropriation to such a reserve, states that the licensee shall appropriate to contingencies reserve from the revenues of each year of account a sum not less than one-quarter of one per centum and not more than one-half of one per centum of the original cost of fixed assets, provided tha...
The Management of Safire theatre, Madras vs. the Additional Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad14; (1977)IILLJ312Mad
1. This petition is filed by the Management of the Safire Theatre against the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and nine workmen for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in T.S.E. Appeals Nos. 75 to 88 of 1973.2. Respondents 2 to 10 in the petition, were employed in the Snack Bar and Maintenance Section of the Safire Theatre. The Management decided to close down the Snack Bar and the Maintenance Section, and in pursuance of that decision, fourteen workers, including respondents 2 to 10 were retrenched with effect from 10th October, 1972. The required formalities in effecting retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with, but the workers refused to receive the notice, pay and compensation etc., offered at the time of retrenchment. In October-November, 1972, the Union raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer challenging the retrenchment as illegal and unjustified w...
industrial Chemical Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ137Mad
V. Balasubramanyan, J.1. These two writ appeals raise questions of some importance in the application of the law relating to retrenchment of an employee from service.2. The appellant is a limited company having an office at Madras. The respondent Sankaran was an employee in that office for more than ten years, in 1970, the company discharged Sankaran from service avowedly as a measure of retrenchment. At that time he was one out of four assistants in the office, but not the junior most. When serving the notice of retrenchment, the management gave him one month's notice, pay and retrenchment compensation. But the amount was given by cheque.3. Sankaran raised an industrial dispute over his retrenchment on reference before the Labour Court he pleaded that there was no warrant whatever for the management to introduce any measure of retrenchment at the material time. The Labour Court rejected this plea on the score that the company had incurred losses in its business in 1969 and there was n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »