Chennai Court September 1977 Judgments
Textool Company Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC68(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Board of Revenue imposing tax on the disputed turnover of Rs. 6,39,244.76 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), for the assessment year 1964-65. The Board purported to act on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 S.T.C. 136. In effect what it said was that there were two sales in the case, one by the appellant-assessee to the Calcutta buyer and the other by the Calcutta buyer with the foreign buyer. The Board of Revenue did not consider the nature of the sale by the assessee to the Calcutta buyer. The relevant part of the order of the Board of Revenue is in these terms :The contentions have been examined with reference to the connected records. The plea to defer the decision of the Board till the contemplated legislation by the Government of India took into shape cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Board has decided to dispose of t...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiswami Vs. Rathnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad78; (1978)1MLJ456
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of N. S. Ramaswami J. in A. S. No. 435 of 1969 confirming the decision of the Sub Court, Coimbatore in O. S. No. 345 of 1964.2. The suit O. S. No. 345 of 1964 has been filed by one Rathnammal, the first respondent herein, for partition and separate possession of her l/5th share in the suit properties consisting of a house in Coimbetore and certain lands in Peria Godiveri village in Gobichettipalayam taluk. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the children of the first defendant through his wife Annammal who died in December 1952. The suit properties belonged to Annammal. On the ground that Annammal died interstate the plaintiff has claimed her one-fifth share in the suit properties. The fourth defendant who is another daughter of Annammal also claimed her one-fifth share by paying the necessary court-fee on her written statement. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died. Thereafter the plaintiff and the fourth defendant...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chillies Export House Limited and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC340(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C. J.1. The question arising in these tax revision cases under Section 38 of the General Sales Tax Act, directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, turns on the construction of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We shall immediately read Section 5(1), which is as follows :(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India.2. Before Section 5(1) came into existence, Article 286(1) has been the subject-matter of interpretation by many a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and it had been succinctly stated-established by almost ancient decisions, the Travancore-Cochin first and second cases, namely, State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Company Ltd. : [1952]1SCR1112 . and Sta...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chillies Export House Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Mad)177
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. - The question arising in the Tax Revision Cases under S. 38 of the General Sales Tax Act, directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal turns on the construction of S. 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We shall immediately read S. 5(1) which is as follow :'(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India'.Before S. 5(1) came into existence, Art. 286(1) has been the subject matter of interpretation by many a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and it had been succinctly stated-established by almost ancient decisions, the Travancore-Cochin first and second cases, namely. State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Bombay Co. Ltd., and State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewn...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. Salem Magnesite (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC285(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is a tax revision case taken from the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore and the question relates to the taxability of the disputed turnover of Rs. 2,22,400. The year of assessment, with which we are concerned, is 1968-69. The claim of the assessee was that the sale in question was a sale in the course of export and, therefore, exempt from taxation. The commodity is calcined magnesite. the sale of which was taxable at multi-point. The main question is whether the sale by the assessee to Messrs. Wilson and Co. is a local sale taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or, what we may term briefly, export sale, which cannot be taxed. The facts are the following, as are seen from the two letters dated 10th February, 1968, written by Wilson and Co. to the assessee. From those letters it is evident that Wilson and Co. was acting on behalf of their overseas principals. The price fixed was for per metric ton and it was payable...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan Vs. K. Madurai Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ29
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The defendant in the two suit (O.S. Nos. 608 and 663 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chingleput) has preferred these two second appeals. The question in both the cases is whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership)(Act XL of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act, and the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act (XXXVIII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Kudiruppu Protection Act, and whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits.2. One Rajaram Naidu and others owned certain lands extending 2.89 acres of which the suit site (3 cents) is part. The defendant became a tenant of the suit site under the above owners as evidenced by Exhibit A-7 dated 20th March, 1973, which says that he had become tenant even two years prior to the date of the document. It is now common ground that he so became tenant in or...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Dharma Raja and ors. Vs. M.K. Rama Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ492
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 to 10 in O.S. No. 73 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram are the appellants herein.2. The suit was filed by the respondents-Pla'ntiffs for partition and separate possession of an 1/6 share in the plaint A and B schedule properties in favour of the second plaintiff or in the alternative for directing framing of a scheme for the effective management of the plaint-A schedule properties, making due provision for the participation of the second plaintiff therein and for his receiving an 1/6 share in the surplus income and also directing the division of the plaint B Schedule properties and delivering an 1/6 share therein to the second plaintiff: (2) for directing the defendants to render a true and proper account for the income derived by them from 13th June, 1967 from the plaint A schedule properties and also as regards the sale proceeds of the third item in the schedule attached to the trust settlement deed, ...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Paul Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1977
Reported in: [1979]117ITR412(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The petition is mainly concerned with the interpretation to be placed on Sub-section (7) of Section 220 read with the Explanation to that section of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Certain other points had also been argued at the time of the hearing of the case. One of such points was that Circular No. 25 dated July 25, 1969 (See [1969] 73 ITR (St.) 23 issued by the CBDT should be quashed as discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or that the same concession that had been granted to assessees who had income arising or accruing in Pakistan must be extended to the writ petitioner. The other points urged, we do not consider that we should pronounce upon in this judgment. We shall now refer to certain essential facts for disposing of the main question as well as the reasoning based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-assessee seems to be a very enterprising person who left the country early in life an...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Muthiriar Vs. Ayyathurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad246; (1978)1MLJ169
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. In this second appeal by the defendant the question raised is whether the trial court was in order in passing a final decree for redemption without first passing a preliminary decree. The plaintiff executed an usufructuary mortgage as per the original of Ex, A-1, dated 28-8-1871, in favour of the defendant for sum of Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 2,000 in court while filing the suit for redemption. The defendant did not appear to contest the suit. The trial court straightway passed a final decree for redemption following the decision in Roshan Lal v. Bhuri Singh, : AIR1922All479 . It also fixed the mesne profits at Rs. 61 per month, on payment of the necessary court-fee.2. The defendant filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. He went into the question whether the court can grant a final decree for redemption without granting a preliminary decree and held on the basis of the above said Allahabad decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavaveera Sons and ors. Vs. Mrs. Padmavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad81; (1978)1MLJ36
1. This appeal is against the order of V. Ramaswami J. dismissing Appln. No. 1176 of 1977 which had been filed for setting aside the Master's order dated 7-2-1977 made in Appln. No. 3826 of 1976 in C. S. 152 of 1976.2. C. S. 152 of 1976 had been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,000 with subsequent interest at 12 per cent per annum, from the date of the plaint on the basis of the promissory note dated 27-7-1973, alleged to have been executed by S.R. Swami, the second defendant, a partner of the first defendant-firm, for and on behalf of the first defendant-firm of which defendants 3 to 6 also are said to be partners. It was alleged in the plaint that defendants 1 and 3 to 6 (the appellants) are not only well aware of the lending of the amount by the respondent (plaintiff) but were also promising to pay the amount due under the promissory note before they changed their attitude later and chose to make all sorts of false and frivolous allegations. The suit was filed as an under Chapt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›