Chennai Court December 1982 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. J.C. Electricals
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC16(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question in this case is, whether the sales effected by the assessee are first sales or second sales of electrical goods. The contention of the assessee, quite naturally, is that they were all second sales. This has been accepted by the Tribunal in appeal. In this revision, the State Government questions that finding. 2. It is on record that the goods which have been sold by the assessee in this case were all goods purchased from a concern by name 'Honesty Electricals'. This Honesty Electricals figured in two tax cases on a former occasion, before this Court, in T.C. No. 1078 of 1982 [State of Tamil Nadu v. Devendra Electricals Printed at page 17 infra] and T.C. No. 1201 of 1982. In both these tax cases, the question was, whether Honesty Electricals was a bogus concern or whether it was a real dealer having real transactions in purchases and sales. This Court held in those tax cases that Honesty Electricals was a genuine dealer and its sales were second sale...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.M. Firm Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas308(Mad); 1985(4)ECC27
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same and the points involved are also the same, they are dealt with together. 2. In Writ Petition No. 891 of 1978, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated February 17, 1978, passed by the respondent in so far as it calls upon the petitioner to repatriate the funds of the petitioner firm held in the Chartered Bank, Singapore. In Writ Petition No. 892 of 1978, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to utilise the funds held in the Chartered Bank at Singapore for the purposes of the firm abroad and forbearing the respondent from taking any action pursuant to its letter dated February 17, 1978. 3. The circumstances under which the impugned order dated February 17, 1978, came to be passed by the respondent can briefly be set out. The petitioner firm has been in existence since 1929. The firm originally consisted of Thiru A.M. M. Murugappa Chett...
Tag this Judgment!Pappayee Ammal Vs. Subbulakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad344; (1983)1MLJ232
1. Mr. Sarvabhauman the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, contends that it is rather strange that the appellate Court had appointed a Commissioner when there is already in records a report of the Commissioner which was not attacked by the aggrieved appellants before the lower court, and in the circumstances, the order of the lower appellate Court is contrary to law. In this regard, he refers to the decisions reported in T. R. Rajagopala Iyer v. T. R. Ramachandra Iyer. and Arumugham v. Arumugham, 1979-1 Mad LJ 358.2. In the instant case, before me, the petition was filed by the appellant in A. S. No. 132 of 1979 under O. 29. R. 9 and Ss. 94 and151. Civil P.C. praying for appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection of the suit property. In the affidavit accompanying the petition I.A. No. 324 of 1981 it is inter alia stated on oath by Selvaraj, the second appellant, that a Commissioner was appointed in the trial Court and that he had filed his reports and plans. It is fu...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1982
Reported in: 1983LC199D(Madras); 1983(14)ELT2342(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The issue which is raised in this writ petition is about the extent of the coverage of the exemption from Customs duty on imported viscose staple fibre under a Central Government notification of 198. 2. The answer depends on our being able to distinguish between different varieties of Customs duties and the nature of each. It also depends on our understanding of the precise terms of the notification under which exemption from duty has been granted to viscose staple fibres. 3. In this country we now have various duties of customs, called basic duty, additional duty, auxiliary duty and surcharge. The first two alone are in point for the present discussion. The Customs Act, 1962 deals with Customs duty proper, which people refer to as the basic duty. The Customs Act is a permanent Code for the Customs. It establishes the administrative hierarchy for the management of duties of customs; it lays down the assessment procedure; it contains enforcement provisions, such ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Rudrappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)347; [1984]147ITR355(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Rudrappan, who is the assessee in this income-tax reference, is since deceased and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The assessee, Rudrappan, was a partner in a registered partnership firm of eight persons called 'Universal Paper Tube Company', Coimbatore. The partners' shares in that firm were equal. The assessee contributed Rs. 15,000 as and towards his share of capital in the firm. Under the terms of the partnership, this amount held to be returned at the time when the assessee left the firm. Actually, the assessee retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1971. During the period of three proceeding years ending with March 31, 1971, the firm had run into losses. The assessee's share of the losses amounted to Rs. 20,831.28. under the agreed terms of the retirement of the assessee, the capital contribution of Rs. 15,000 paid by him was returned to him and his share of accumulated loss, namely, Rs. 20,831.28 was also forgone. The ITO tr...
Tag this Judgment!Al. Murugan Chettiar and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC227(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals are different. Each of them is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Each of them owns a ginning factory in which raw cotton or kapas is converted into lint or ginned cotton. As if by a coincidence, each of them does not keep any accounts at all of his purchases. But the commercial taxes department was able to obtain figures of the sales of ginned cotton or lint. Cotton, in any form, is not assessable at the point of sale, which may be one reason why these people have not kept their accounts of purchases. For want of figures of purchases, the assessing authority was hard put to it to estimate the purchase value of raw cotton by applying a formula and arriving at their purchase value from the data furnished by the sales turnover of ginned cotton. In arriving at the purchase turnover from the data available in regard to the sales turnover, the purchase turnover was arrived at in the following fashion, to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›