Chennai Court September 1980 Judgments
L.N. Plantation Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC210(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. These are appeals against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) dated 17th December, 1979, suo motu revising the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Pollachi, concerning two assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The appellant claimed exemption in respect of the turnover of the timber produce on the ground that they were agricultural produce and not commercial produce and they were essentially planters and in order to develop the plantation they cut the standing trees and sold them. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is this : 'The facts are not denied. It is true that after clearing the area of the forest growth the assessee had intended to raise plantation crops in the area. However, it is observed that they have registered themselves as dealers. Though the ultimate object of the assessee was to grow coffee, tea or cardamom, the motive to do business in logs and firewood is clearly discernible. After cutting the trees which had grown...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Vasan and Sons Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1980
Reported in: [1982]51STC353(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore, and restoring the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam. 2. The only question that arose was whether what the dealer-petitioner purchased was 'timber' or 'firewood'. The Board pointed out : 'The purchase of the cut-ends from persons other than the assessee is not denied. The only dispute is whether the cut-ends could be classified as timber or as firewood. In deciding this issue a certificate issued by the forest department is of no significance, for, it is not clear on what basis the forest department gave certificate that the cut-ends could be classified as firewood. The assessee is not a dealer in firewood. His letter-head described him as a manufacturer of wooden cable drums and other wooden articles and dealer in all kinds of timber. Apart from cable drums the assessee also deals in timber of all kinds but de...
Tag this Judgment!Thavakkal Agencies Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC179(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in fertilisers. The dispute related to a turnover of Rs. 34,050 which was sought to be taxed as inter-State sales in the Central sales tax assessment for the assessment year 1971-72. The turnover of Rs. 34,050 consisted of two items of transactions, namely, Rs. 18,450 and Rs. 15,600. The turnover of Rs. 15,600 related to a sale at Bangalore. 2. It was the case of the dealer that originally he sold the goods for Rs. 18,000 to one Manjunath Agencies at Bangalore and despatched the same from Coimbatore to Bangalore. As the goods were not accepted by the buyers they found another buyer, raised a separate bill and arranged the goods to be delivered to the subsequent buyer, namely, Gurusiddappa & Sons, for Rs. 15,600. The dealer had included this turnover of Rs. 15,600 in his form 1 return for the month of March, 1972, as an inter-State sale. But at the time of final assessment he contended before the assessing officer that it was neither an inter-S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. N.S. Krishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: [1983]144ITR347(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan J. 1. The primary question in this income-tax reference is about the proper way to ascertain the cost of a capital asset for the purpose of computation of the capital gains arising therefore. 2. One Krishan Rao owned a steel press. This is an item of machinery useful for bus-body-building operation. Krishan RAO was earning income from the lease of the machinery. The machinery belonged to Krishna Rao as his separate property although there was all the time a joint family of which he was the karta. On November 1, 1969, Krishan Rao, declared by writing that the machinery shall be the property of the joint family. Barely two months afterwards, on December 31, 1969, this item of machinery was disposed of as an item of joint family property. It was sold to a third party. The sale consideration received by the family was Rs. 44,000. It was conceded that the family was liable to capital gains tax on this transaction. But the question arose as to how the cost of this machine in...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramaniam Vs. State Bank of India Staff Co-operative Society Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR82]; (1981)IILLJ123Mad
Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 30th July, 1980 dismissing W.P. No. 1869 of 1979, filed by the appellant herein. The appellant was an employee of the respondent co-operative society. He filed before the Labour Court a petition under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension from 23rd December, 1977 to the end of July, 1978. The Labour Court dismissed the petition holding that under bye law 12(h) the respondent had a discretion to grant or not to grant subsistence allowance, that that discretion had been properly exercised in the present case not to grant subsistence allowance and that, therefore, the appellant herein would not be entitled to subsistence allowance. That order of the Labour Court was brought up before this Court in the writ petition referred to above. The learned Judge agreed with the conclusion of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appea...
Tag this Judgment!A.U. Natarajan and anr. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad151
Natarajan, J.1. This civil revision petition has come before us pursuant to a reference made by Ratnam, J. that the matter may be dealt with by a Bench for having an authoritative pronouncement on the question enunciated below:'Whether an executing court has no power to fix the upset price for the sale of property and consequently, no power as well to reduce the same?'The contention of 'the revision petitioner is that the executing Court has no power to fix the upset price and hence it has no power also to reduce the same. Ratnam, J. noticed that such a contention has been upheld by Sathiadev. J. in Kanniayan v. Chidambaram Finance Corporation, C. R. P. No. 2791 of 1979 of this court dated 11-1-1980. 1980 TNLJ 33; Betha Gounder v. Dharmasubrariania Iyer, C. R. P. No. 1277 of 19-77, D/- 22-61978 and Kamadhenu Bailings v. Secretary Guruvavur Temple Renovation Committee, Kerala, C. R. P. No. 1127 of 1978, D/- 22-7-1978. The referring Judge also noticed that Ramanuiam. J. in Ramaswami Goun...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. U. Natarajan and anr. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ286
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has come before as pursuant to a reference made by Ratnam, J., that the matter may be dealt with by a Bench for having an authoritative pronouncement on the question enunciated below:Whether an executing Court has no power to fix the upset price for the sale of property and consequently, no power as well to reduce the same?2. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the executing Court has no power to fix the upset price and hence it has no power also to reduce the same. Ratnam, J., noticed that such a contention has been upheld by Sathiadev, J. in Kannaiyan and Anr. v. Chidambaram Finance Corporation, Chidabaram C. B. P. No. 2791 of 1979, dated 9th January 1980. (1980) TLNJ 33. Betha Goundar v. K. K. Dharmasubramania Iyer C.R.P. No. 1277 of 1977, dated 22nd June, 1978. and Kamadhenu Bailings end another v. Secretary, Guruvayur Temple Renovation Committee, Kerala C.R.P. No. 1127 of 1968, dated 27th July, 1978. The referring Ju...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramaniam Vs. State Bank of India, Staff Co-operative Society Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ509
M. M. Ismail, CJ.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 30th July, 1980 dismissing W. P. No. 1869 of 1979, filed by the appellant herein. The Appellant was an employee of the respondent co-operative society. He filed before the Labour Court a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension from 23rd December, 1977 to the end of July, 1978. The Labour Court dismissed the petition holding that under bye-law 12(h) the respondent had a discretion to grant or not to grant subsistence allowance, that that discretion had been properly exercised in the present case not to grant subsistence allowance and that therefore the appellant herein would not be entitled to subsistence allowance. That order of the Labour Court was brought up before this Court in the writ petition referred to above. The learned Judge agreed with the conclusion of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bapalal and Co. (Manufacturing), Madras-3 Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1980
Reported in: [1982]49STC20(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 25th January, 1978. For the assessment year 1975-76, the petitioners returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,08,29,979 and Rs. 1,03,46,238 respectively. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer included the purchase turnover of old jewels and determined the taxable turnover of Rs. 1,48,04,673 and levied tax on the purchase turnover at 1 per cent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners contended that they were purchasing old jewellery and making them into different forms of jewellery and they were not purchasing bullion. The Tribunal held that in the case of the petitioners, all the requirements of section 7-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, have been satisfied and therefore the petitioners were liable to pay purchase tax. The Tribunal pointed out : 'The appellants are dealers in jewellery. They have purcha...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chennakesavalu Vs. the Commissioner, Board of Revenue (Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC403(Mad)
Ismail, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Madras, dated 30th May, 1977, suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner-II, Madras, dated 7th June, 1972. The appellant was purchasing old silver articles and silver from customers and manufacturing silver articles out of the same and selling the same. The question that came to be decided by the Board was whether the appellant was liable to purchase tax under section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or not. Section 7-A of the Act reads as follows : 'Levy of Purchase tax. - (1) Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person, any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) in circumstances in which no tax is payable under section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be, and either, - (a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or (b) dis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »