Chennai Court January 1981 Judgments
The X-ray and Allied Products Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1981
Reported in: [1983]54STC121(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 14th May, 1980, suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 19th May, 1979. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, one of the items of turnover disputed was in relation to a sum of Rs. 33,287. It was argued before him that the assessing officer had not given sufficient opportunity to produce the remaining C or D form and the appellants herein produced D forms for Rs. 33,287 and requested that the turnover may be assessed at concession rate of tax. With reference to this sum, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in paragraph 5 of his order has stated as follows : 'At the time of hearing, the Advocate has produced D and C forms for Rs. 33,287 covering bills Nos. 965, 1010, 21, 45, 61, 69, 71 and 31 and requests that the above turnover may be assessed at concessional rate, as the assessing officer has not given sufficient opportunity to produce the ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasan Vs. Arurnuaham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad246; (1981)2MLJ16
1. This revision under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. raises a point about recidivate in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner is the owner of a non-residential building in Arni under the tenancy of the respondent. In the year 1973. the petitioner moved the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant. inter alia. on the ground that he required the building for housing a business of his own. The Rent Controller dismissed that petition on the preliminary point that prior to filing the petition no notice to quit under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been issued to the tenant. In this view. the Rent Controller did not have to go into the merits of any of the grounds of eviction raised in the Petition.3. Two or three years later the Petitioner came out with another eviction petition before the Rent Controller against the same tenant on the self-same grounds. This time the Rent Controller went into the merits and granted an order of eviction, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Pichai Mohamed and ors. Vs. P.P. Muthu Mohamed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1981
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ76
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 34 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivaganga, by defendants 10,16 and 18 and legal representatives of the 13th defendant and the plaintiffs and 14th defendant have filed Memorandum of Cross-Objections, questioning the judgment of the lower court, so far as it is against them. 2. The suit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for partition and separate possession of their alleged 112/960 share in the suit properties. The suit properties consisted of schedules A and B. A schedule consisted of 5 items of house properties and B schedule consisted of 25 items of lands. The plaintiff's case as set out in their plaint are as follows:3. Their senior maternal grandfather, Kadar Baksha (herein after referred to as senior Kadar Baksha) his two brothers, Peer Mohammed (Plaintiffs' maternal grand father) and Ayyadurai Rowther, carried on a joint and common business in the fashion of Hindu families....
Tag this Judgment!Andal Sweet Stall and TiffIn Dining Hall Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC551(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. These are petitions to revise the common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras-1, dated 24th October, 1979, made in Tribunal Appeals Nos. 232, 512, 595 and 596 of 1979. The petitioners herein preferred appeals against the orders of assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after a period of 30 days from the date on which the orders of assessment were served. As a matter of fact, the appeals were very much belated. But the petitioners contended that they came to know that the transactions effected by them were not liable to sales tax only from the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi : [1979]1SCR557 and within 30 days from the date of their knowledge of that decision they had filed the appeals in question and, therefore, the delay, if any, involved in filing the appeals should be excused. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner declined to condone the delay. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Packwell Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC329(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. These are tax revision cases against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras-1, dated 25th February 1980, made in T.A. Nos. 1696 and 1762 of 1978. The petitioners are manufacturers of packing materials. The disputed turnover related to the sales of corrugated boxes, heavy duty containers, duplex boards and waxed cartons made by the petitioners to certain exporters of sea foods. The petitioner claimed exemption in respect of sales turnover of these packing materials based on section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 5(3) of that Act reads as follows : 'Section 5(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in rela...
Tag this Judgment!R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ434
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. There is a Temple for Sree Veeraraghava Perumal in Tiruppur town. The Temple needed renovation. Some of the members of the public formed themselves into a Thiruppani Committee in 1953. They then proceeded to renovate the Temple with the aid of funds collected from the public. The renovation was completed and the Kumbabishekam was performed in 1969. In the following year, the Local Fund Audit Department audited the Tiruppani accounts and found several irregularities. Based on their report, departmental proceedings were started for surcharging the members of the Tiruppani Committee. The Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments who conducted the surcharge proceedings ultimately passed an order surcharging two members of the Tiruppani Committee. One was the petitioner. He was a Trustee of the Temple. He occupied the office of Secretary of the Tiruppani Committee. The other was the convener of the Tiruppani Committee. The Deputy Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Sri Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: [1983]54STC120(Mad)
Ismail, C.J. 1. The matter relates to reassessment under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. There is no dispute that the respondent had purchased yarn from master weavers who in turn have purchased from co-operative societies which in turn had purchased from the spinning mills. It is in that context the Tribunal observed that when the yarn has been traced to production from the spinning mills in the State and had been sold to co-operative societies in the State, it is difficult to hold that there were no earlier taxable sales in the State and that the respondent herein who had come into possession of the goods after two or three stages had become the first seller in the State, and that there was no sufficient material for the assessing officer to make the assessment under section 16 in respect of an escaped turnover. By making these observations and reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error of law so as to entitle this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs. Khader Badsha Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad376
Ramanujam, J.1. As all these Letters Patent Appeals arise out of common judgments rendered by the trial court, appellate court and the second appellate court, they are to be disposed of by a common judgment.2.The Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 126 of 1976, 57 of 1977 and 58 of 1977, arise out of the same suit 0. S. 13 of 1970 which is one for recovery of possession of one acre and 11 cents comprised in Survey No. 204/1, filed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board against one Ponnuthavammal. L. P. A. No. 55 of 1977 arises out of the suit 0. S. 514 of 1970 filed by the Wakf Board against one Kader Badsha Saheb for recovery of possession of one acre and 89 cents comprised in survey No. 188/1. L. P. As.56 and 59 of 1977, arise out of the suit 0. S. 519 of 1970 filed by the Wakf Board against one Sheik Dawood Saheb and two others for reeovery of possession of about 2.03 acres comprised in survey No. 176/2 in Madapuram village, in Siva ganga Taluk. In all the three suits the Wakf Board pleaded as follow...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Ali and anr. Vs. M.K. Abdul Salam Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ425
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1665 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for redemption of a mortgage, dated 13th February, 1960 executed in favour of the first defendant in respect of the property originally known as door No. 19, Mohammed Hussain Khan Lane, Royapettah, Madras. The mortgaged property originally belonged to defendants 4 to 7 in the suit and they had executed the mortgage, dated 13th February, 1960, for a sum of Rs. 4,000. There was a partition of door No. 19 in the family of the owners and the property was renumbered as door Nos. 19-A, 19-B and 19-C. Door Nos. 19-A and 19-B were allotted to defendants 4 to 6 and door No. 19-C to the seventh defendant, who died pending suit and whose legal representatives are defendants 9 to 13 in the suit. On 2nd July, 1967, defendants 4 to 6 agreed to sell to the plaintiff the equity of redemption in the property, door No. 19-A, measuring 800 sq. ft. for Rs, 9,000...
Tag this Judgment!T. Periaswamy Gounder Vs. Agrl. Income-tax Officer, Pollachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1981
Reported in: [1982]134ITR155(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The petitioner was assessed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, V of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for an extent of 26.43 ordinary acres from 1972-73 onwards under composition application basis. Subsequently, in 1977, the first respondent, on the premises that certain landed properties enjoyed commonly by the petitioner, his wife and his sons were omitted to be assessed at the hands of the petitioner, took action under s. 65A(3) read with s. 9(2) of the Act and issued a show-cause notice as to why these properties should not be clubbed and taxed treating the petitioner as 'association of persons'. The petitioner did not respond to the notice and the first respondent passed a revised assessment order on September 24, 1977, for the years 1972-73 to 1976-77 treating the petitioner as 'association of persons', clubbing the properties which stand in the names of his wife and his sons with those which stand in the name of the petitioner. As ag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »