Chennai Court June 1977 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.
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Madras Refineries Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC306(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This tax revision case has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and involves consideration of a simple question as to whether the assessee is eligible for the concessional rate of tax provided Under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee imports crude oil and refines it at the refinery at Manali in Tamil Nadu. In this case the assessee sold what are called lube base stocks and claimed concessional rate of tax on a turnover of Rs. 37,78,008.59 at 2 per cent as against the general rate of tax of 7 per cent. There is no dispute that in case the rate of 2 per cent was not applicable to the said sale, then the assessee would have to be taxed at the rate of 7 per cent. As regards the claim of concessional rate of tax at 2 per cent, the assessee stated that sales to the extent mentioned above were effected on the strength of form XVII declarations made by the purchasers, namely, Indian Oil Corporation, who had purchased ...
Md. Sultan Moideen and ors. Vs. Official Trustee, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad248
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1 . These two appeals are somewhat connected. L. P. A. No. 12 of 1976 is directed against the judgment of N. S. Ramaswami J. in App. No. 19 of 1972 and O. S. A. 3 of 1976 is against an order of Mohan J. in Appln. No. 3234 of 1975 in O. P. 188 of 1920. We shall first deal with the L. P. A. No. 12 of 1976.2. M.A. Mohamed Burhanuddin Sahib entered into an arrangement with the Official Trustee, Madras, under Exs. A-1 and A-2 dated 12-5-1961 and 4-1-1963, which were styled as lease deeds, in and by which Mohamed Burhanuddin Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the original tenant) obtained a right to collect the rents from a market called Connemera Market in Pudupet, Madras. There are a number of stalls in the said market which is used as a daily market. Apparently for administrative convenience, the Official Trustee enabled Mr. Sahib to collect the rents from the various stalls in the market and pay him a monthly rent of Rs. 970 and the tenant was obliged to perform various...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.R. Ramachari and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC542(Mad)
Sethuraman, J1. The assessee is a dealer in aluminium and eversilver vessels. He was assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 6,53,349.75 for the assessment year 1966-67. The order of assessment is dated 8th October, 1968. The place of business of the assessee as well as the residence of the assessee were inspected by the special staff of the Intelligence Wing on 8th October, 1970. During the course of inspection certain anamath records containing the business transactions of the dealer were secured. A scrutiny of the entries made therein showed the details of the aluminium and stainless steel sheets handled by them in the manufacture of vessels. Certain transactions, which found place in the anamath accounts secured by the special staff, were verified with the regular accounts and on such verification it was seen that certain transactions had not been brought into the regular books for the relevant year. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was therefore of the view that the dealer had supp...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.L. Francis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC133(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The assessee is running a hotel. He had not registered himself as a dealer till his place of business was inspected on 2nd June, 1972. The assessing authority checked the accounts and found that they were not correctly maintained. The hotel itself had been started on 22nd November, 1971. We are in the present revision dealing with the assessment year 1971-72. Therefore, the turnover between 22nd November, 1971 and 31st March, 1972, is relevant for consideration. The assessing authority fixed the turnover for that period at Rs. 46,986.55 and in addition levied a penalty of Rs. 1,515. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while confirming the assessment reduced the penalty to Rs. 909. Thereafter, there was an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Three contentions were taken before the Tribunal. The first was that the addition to the book turnover was not proper. The Tribunal went into this question and found that the defects pointed out by the assessing ...
R.A. Raman Chettiar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC130(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 19th June, 1974, in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee is a dealer in iron and steel. He reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 11,51,998.33 and Rs. 5,05,998.63 for the year 1965-66. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer found the accounts to be defective and he rejected the accounts and determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 7,18,030.37. The dealer filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The result of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was to accept the book turnover but to reject the claim for exemption made by the assessee with reference to a turnover of Rs. 1,69,992. The assessee preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 29th December, 1970, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored...
M.A.B. Mohd. Sultan Mohideen and ors. Vs. Official Trustee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ190
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two appeals are somewhat connected. L.P.A. No. 12 of 1976 is directed against the Judgment of N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Appeal No. 19 of 1972 and O.S.A. No. 3 of 1976 is against an order of S. Mohan, J., in Application No. 3234 of 1975 in O.S. No. 158 of 1920. We shall first deal with L.P.A. No. 12 of 1976.2. M.A. Mohamed Burhanuddin Sahib entered into an arrangement with the Official Trustee, Madras, under Exhibits A-1 and A-2 dated 12th May, 1961 and 4th January, 1963, which were styled as lease deeds, in and by which Mohamed Burhanuddin Sahib (here in after referred to as the original tenant) obtained a right to collect the rents from a market called Connemara Market in Pudupet, Madras. There are a number of stalls in the said market which is used as a daily market. Apparently for administrative convenience, the Official Trustee enabled Mr. Sahib to collect the rents from the various stalls in the market and pay him a monthly rent of Rs. 970 and the tenant w...
Baba Industries and anr. Vs. the Mehta Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad146
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned counsel for the appellants, rightly contends that the order of the learned Judge in Appln. No. 2432 of 1974 wherein he imposed a condition while granting leave to defend, is assailable, because it is against the accepted canons of judicial interpretation as found in the case law. 2. In the instant case, the respondent was the plaintiff and the applicants-appellants were the defendants, who sought for leave to defend an action brought by the respondent on the foot of a promissory note. The learned Master who went into the question, as well as Sethuraman J, expressed the view that there is a prima facie defence available to the defendants and he agreed with the learned Master that leave to defend has to be granted in the instant case. Having granted such relief, he went into the question whether such leave should be conditional or unconditional. He exercised his discretion against the appellants and gave conditional leave subject to t...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Kareem and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1977
Reported in: [1979]117ITR233(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Addl. CIT, Madras-1, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the release deed dated March 4, 1963, and the original partnership deed dated February 28, 1958, constitute instrument of partnership evidencing the existence of partnership by the two continuing partners with their respective shares and in directing to grant registration to the firm on that basis ?(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was compliance with Section 184(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1963-64 ?(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in granting registration to the firm for the assessment year 1963-64?'2. From the question set out above, it could be seen that the real question is question No. 3, and the other questions merely se...
Baba Industries and anr. Vs. the Mehta Traders by Prop. D.R. Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ479
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned Counsel for the. appellants rightly contends that the order of the learned Judge in Application No. 2432 of 1974 wherein he imposed a condition while granting leave to defend, is assailable, because, it is against the accepted canons of judicial interpretation as found in the case-law.2. In the instant case, the respondent was the plaintiff and the applicants appellants were the defendants, who sought for leave to defend an action brought by the respondent on the foot of a promissory note. The learned Master who went into the question, as well as Sethuraman, J., expressed the view what there is a prima facie defence available to the defendants and he agreed with the learned Master that leave to defend has to be granted in the instant case. Having granted such relief, he went into the question whether such leave should be conditional or unconditional. He exercised his discretion against the appellants and gave conditional leave sub...
M.M. Jaffar Kermani Vs. M.M. Hassan Kirmani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad121; (1978)1MLJ103
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 1606 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court. Madras, is the appellant, Haji Mirza Ali Naki Sahib Kirmani, executed a wakf deed whereunder he set apart his property bearing door No. 73, Sembudoss Street, for certain religious and charitable purposes. After earmarking a portion of the income from the said property for certain purposes accepted in Muslim Law, he directed that the surplus income be taken over by the Muthavalli. The first Muthavalli was the Wakif himself, and thereafter he constituted his wife and sons as joint muthavallis. He had two sons and the plaintiff is the son through one such son and defendants 1 and 2 are sons of the second son of the wakif. The Wakif died in 1927 and after the death of his wife and his two sons, it transpires that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property for a considerable length of time. The first defendant initiated proceedings before the Wakf Board and sought for a directi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »