Chennai Court September 1988 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.
S. Vaidyanathan, Income-tax Officer Vs. Dr. B. Mathuram and Sons and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)80; [1989]179ITR463(Mad)
DAVID ANNOUSSAMY J. - The revision petition is by the complainant, namely, the Income-tax Officer, City Circle I(1), Tiruchirapalli, against an order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, on November 19, 1984.A complaint under sections 120B, 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, and sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was filed by the Income-tax Officer, City Circle I(1), Tiruchirapalli, on January 19, 1984, under the following circumstances against the six respondents, the first respondent being a partnership firm and the other respondents being the partners thereof. The firm came into existence on April, 1, 1973, and has been carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of indigenous medicinal preparations. After the income-tax assessments of the first accused firm for the assessment years 1975-76, and 1976-77 were completed on September 29, 1976, and February 3, 1977, respectively, it came to light that the first accused firm had a cur...
Raja Agencies Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC168
ORDERRamalingam, J.1. The petitioners are letter of authority holders of two REP Import Licences of Export Houses, for import of raw materials, components and consumables covered by Appendix 10, Entry No. 1 of Import Policy, April 1981-March 1982. The petitioners placed an order for supply of 300 M.T. of Acid Oil (Raw material for soap) with M/s. Hardial Enterprises Private Limited, Singapore, which was confirmed by their letter dated 2.1.1981. The goods arrived by ship on 2.5.1981. The petitioners filed the bills of lading Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 dated 30.3.1981. The customs authorities did not release the goods but issued a show cause notice stating that though the ship's manifest shows that the goods loaded are coconut acid oil, in view of the fact that the goods are imported from Singapore where 'Palm' is grown in abundance, the imported oil should be palm acid oil which is a canalised item. It was also stated that though the bills of lading are dated 30.3.1981, the goods were not actu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hemalatha Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Mad)42; [1990]183ITR461(Mad)
S. Ratnavel Pandian, Offg. C. J.1. In this reference which arises under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the following question of law has been referred to this court under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount standing to the 'plant replacement reserve' should be taken as capital for levy of surtax?' 2. The assessee has been assessed to surtax for the assessment year 1975- 76. The assessee took up the stand that the 'plant replacement reserve' should be treated as a free reserve for there purpose of inclusion in the capital computed under the Second Schedule to the Act. While completing the surtax assessment for the said assessment year, the Income-tax Officer held that the amount standing to the 'plant replacement reserve' is not a reserve and should not be taken as a...
Kathiresan Pillai and ors. Vs. the Additional Collector of Central Exc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC14
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. As these writ petitions deal with a common matter they are dealt with together. 2. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2012 to 2015 of 1988, who are partners of the firm 'Sujatha Jewellers', 105-A, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai, have filed these separate writ petitions for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent--the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madurai to dispose of their application dated 18-11-1985 for renewal of their licence under the Gold Control Act without reference to his order dated 16-10-1987 in C. No. XVII/7/59 order No. 11/87 and pass such other and necessary order. W.P. No. 2012 of 1988 has been filed to quash the aforesaid order of the respondent--Additional Collector of Central Excise. 3. The brief facts of the case are these: Thiru M. Kathiresen, petitioner in W.P. No. 2012 of 1988 was the holder of licence No. XVII/77 dated 3-9-1977 issued to him by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai for carrying on the bu...
M. Kathiresan Pillai and ors. Vs. Additional Collector of Central Exci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(25)LC353(Madras)
S.A. Kader, J.1. As these writ petitions deal with a common matter they are dealt with together.2. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2012 to 2015 of 1988, who are partners of the firm 'Sujatha Jewellers' 1057A, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai have filed these separate writ petitions for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madurai to dispose of their application dated 18.11.1985 for renewal of their licence under the Gold Control Act without reference to his order dated 16.10.1987 in c. No, XVII/7/59 order No. 11/87 and pass such other and necessary order, W.P. No. 2012 of 1988 has been filed to quash the afore said order of the respondent-Additional. Collector of Central Excise.3. The brief facts of the case are these: Thiru M. Kathiresan, petitioner in W.P. No. 2012 of 1988 was the holder of licence No. XVII/77 dated 3.9.1977 issued to him by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai for carrying on the business o...
Government of India Vs. Prabhakar Match Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT406(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. Defendants in O.P. ............ of 1977 on the file of the Sub-court, Dharmapuri, are the appellants. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit to recover Rs. 13,830.60. It was claimed in the plaint that the plaintiff firm was manufacturing matches and for the period from 22-7-1967 to 31-12-1974, it paid excise duty at the rate of Rs. 3.75 per gross of matches of 50 boxes. Third defendant issued a demand notice dated 4-6-1975 claiming that the Supreme Court of India by judgment dated 4-11-1974 has held that the duty leviable was Rs. 4.30 per gross of matches of 50 boxes and hence called upon plaintiff to pay the differential duty of Rs. 33,152.62. Later on, it was asked to pay one-third of the amount viz. Rs. 11,839/20 and it was paid under protest on 17-9-1975, because the entire demand was barred by limitation under Central Excises and Salt Act. There was no short-levy or non-payment of duty under Rules 9, 10 and 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, hereinafter referred to a...
K.M. Mohd. Abdul Khader Firm Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC33(Mad)
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. One M. A. Jinnah, who is not a party in this writ petition, was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. When he was carrying on business under the name and style of Brothers Auto Syndicate, it is stated that the said Jinnah was in arrears of sales tax for the assessment year 1962-63 to 1976-77 to the extent of Rs. 47,985.66. M. A. Jinnah took in court auction sale a property and the sale was confirmed in his favour on 18th January, 1980. On 23rd July, 1980, Jinnah sold the property (land of an extent of 1.50 acres) to the petitioners. On 5th January, 1982, notice was issued by the first respondent herein (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaikanal) asking the petitioners to pay the arrears of sales tax due from M. A. Jinnah failing which it was stated that the property purchased by them on 23rd July, 1980 from M. A. Jinnah would be brought in public auction. This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the said notices issu...
Balasubramania Gurukkal Vs. Sankara Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ489
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff who won his suit in the trial Court but lost it in the first appellate court has preferred this second appeal.2. The suit relates to Archaka right in a temple. According to the plaintiff his family has been doing archaka service in the Selvavinayagar Temple situate at Market St., Panrutti, from time immemorial and he himself has been doing that service for past 40 years first as an agent of his brother Muthu Gurukkal and then in his own right and he was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 18. He was also getting not less than Rs. 50 per mensem by way of kanikkais from devotees and Kattalaidars. While so the first defendant who is looking after the affairs of the temple without any reason pre vented him from doing his services by the end of Thai, 1977 and appointed the second defendant in his place. He sent a notice to the defendants on 1.3.1977 for which the first defendant sent a reply with untenable contentions. Gn these allegations the plaintiff has prayed for de...
The Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of India and ors. Vs. Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ485
T. Sathiadev, J.1. Defendants in O.S.No.339 of 1977 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri, are the appellants. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit to recover Rs. 13,839.60. It was claimed in the plaint that the plaintiff firm was manufacturing matches and for the period from 22-7-1967 to 31-12-1974, it paid excise duty at the rate of Rs. 3.75 per gross of matches of 50 boxes. Third defendant issued a demand notice dated 4-6-1975 claiming that the Supreme Court of India by judgment dated 4-11-1974 had held that the duty leviable was Rs. 4.30 per gross of matches of 50 boxes and hence called upon plaintiff to pay the differential duty of Rs. 33,152.62. Later on, it was asked to pay one third of the amount, viz., Rs. 11,839.20 and it was paid under protest. There was no short levy or non-payment of duty under Rr.9,10 and 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'. Rule 10 had been struck down by this Court. Rule 10 governs the case of non-payment of shor...
G. Meenambal Vs. A. Natarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ201
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is a revision petition against an order of the District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, dated 15.2.1987 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner landlady in a Rent Control proceedings.2. The petition by the landlady was for the removal of obstruction of the respondents herein. That petition was dismissed on 1-12-1986. The petitioner presented a copy Application No. 1878 on the same date. Stamps were called for on 17-12-1986. The last date for remitting stamps was fixed as 22.12.1986. Finding that stamps were not remitted by the party on the due date, the petition was stuck off. Thereafter the petitoner filed a petition on 23-1-1987 to restore his copy application with offer to pay the stamps called for. Notice of that application was given to the respondents. After hearing both the parties, the court observed that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and then proceeded to reject the petition on the ground that allowing such a pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »