Chennai Court April 2001 Judgments
Dyna Lamps and Glass Works Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas401(Mad); 2002(146)ELT287(Mad); [2004]52SCL186(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the respondents 1, 2 and 5 from taking steps including enforcement encashing or appropriation and the third and fourth respondents from paying the amounts pursuant to the invocation of indemnity cum surety bonds (1) dated 4-5-1992 for a value of Rs. 2,64,04,000/- in respect of Licence No. P/CG/2129184, dated 27-1-1992 issued by third respondent Bank and (2) dated 3-2-1993 for a value of Rs. 40,04,000/- in respect of Licence No. P/CG/2100383, dated 31-7-1992 issued by the fourth respondent Bank issued in favour of the second respondent pending finalisation of Rehabilitation package scheme before the BIFR without the consent of BIFR and until the expiry of the extended period till 2002, within which the petitioner has to comply with the export obligations with reference to which the Indemnity cum Surety bonds were furnished.2. This Court granted interim injunction on 2-11-1999 in W.M.P. No. 256...
Tag this Judgment!Airlines Agents Association and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: [2004]265ITR577(Mad); (2001)2MLJ614
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by Airlines Agents Association, Chennai, and some air travel agents. The petitioners pray for a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by declaring the provisions contained in Section 65(3) and Section 67(k) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended in the year 1996, and Rule 2(d)(viii) of the Service Tax Rules as amended as unconstitutional and void.2. During the year 1994, the then Union Finance Minister proposed to levy tax on the 'services' provided by the non-life insurance agents, stock-brokers, telephone bills, etc. By and by, other service sectors like 'consulting engineers', 'customs house agents', 'steamer agents', 'clearing and forwarding agents', 'advertising agencies' and many others came to be added and brought into the tax net. The services provided by 'air travel agents' came to be brought into the tax net by way of an amendment of Section 65 of the Finance Act. The 'charging sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Jagtiani Vs. Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(131)ELT9(Mad)
ORDERK. Natarajan, J.1. The prayer in this original petition is to call for the records in CC. No. 63 of 1983 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences No. 1, Egmore and quash the same.2. The petitioner had been arrayed as an accused by the respondent complainant for the alleged offences under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Section 120(B) IPC read with Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and also under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The case has been filed otherwise than on police report and it is a warrant case. The petition filed by the petitioner in MP No. 1447 of 1983 for furnishing copies of the report of the Superintendent of Police and the First Information Report was dismissed and was confirmed by the High Court in Cri. R. C. No. 658 of 1983. There is no progress of the case even after the receipt of the case papers from the High Court and after a lapse of one an...
Tag this Judgment!Advertising Club and ors. Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(77)ECC322; 2001(131)ELT35(Mad); [2003]264ITR386(Mad); (2001)2MLJ656; 2006[2]STR457; [2007]6STT196
V. S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of W. P. No. 1545 of 1999, etc., since all the writ petitions involve a common question regarding the 'constitutional validity' of the 'service tax' levied on the 'taxable service' provided to a client by an 'advertising agency' in relation to 'advertisements'.All the petitioners herein are interested in the business of advertisement. Some of them are 'advertising firms' while the others are owning hoardings in the city for the purposes of exhibiting the advertisements. Henceforth, the petitioners would be referred to in this judgment as 'advertising agency' for the sake of brevity.By the Finance Act, 1994, the 'service sector' was brought under the tax-net for the first time. The said Act was amended from time to time to include the various services which were brought under the tax net. Under the scheme of the Act, the impost of the tax was against the persons who provided the services and they had to collect and pay the same. Thus, th...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. Federn. of Bus-operators Assn. of T.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(134)ELT618(Mad); 2006[2]STR411; [2007]6STT49
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the writ petitions mentioned above. In the said writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notices sent to them by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell. Practically, in all the petitions such notices have been challenged.2. By the said notice, the concerned authority has treated the no-ticees as the 'tour operators' and requested them to register themselves with the office and follow the procedures prescribed in the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules framed thereunder with effect from 1-4-2000. In all these writ petitions, the contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners do not come within the mischief of the Finance Act, 1994 imposing the 'service tax' vide Section 66 read with Section 65(38) and Section 65(52) and the notice itself is without jurisdiction.3. The petitioners in these petitions can be classified in the following categories:(I) Petitioners who are 'Stage Carriage Operators' owning ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Ali Akbar and anr. Vs. Keelakarai South Street Jamath Masjid Pari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ126
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The point for determination in this civil revision petition is as to whether the Tribunal constituted by the State Government under Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act 1995 can entertain a petition filed by the members of the Jamath seeking for an order of permanent injunction restraining the civil revision petitioners from interfering with the management committee and grant temporary injunction on the similar line pending the said petition.2. The civil revision petitioners are the respondents 1 and 2 in W.O.P.No. 2 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent. The respondents 2 to 5 in the civil revision petition are the respondents in the said W.O.P. For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the civil revision petition.3. The 1st respondent filed the said W.O.P. under Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act hereinafter called as 'the Act' for a relief of permanent injunction against the revision petitioners from interfering with the management of the committee. The said petit...
Tag this Judgment!Advertising Club Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN287(Mad)
Sirpurkar, J.This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 1545 of 1999, etc., since all the writ petitions involve a common question regarding the 'constitutional validity' of the 'service tax' levied on the 'taxable service' provided to a client by an 'advertising agency' in relation to 'advertisements'.2. All the petitioners herein are interested in the business of advertisement. Some of them are 'advertising firms' while the others are owning hoardings in the city for the purposes of exhibiting the advertisements. Henceforth, the petitioners would be referred to in this judgment as ,advertising agency' for the sake of brevity.3. BY the Finance Act, 1994, the 'service sector' was brought under the tax-net for the first time. The Act was amended from time to time to include the various services which were brought under the tax-net. Under the scheme of the Act, the impost of the tax was against the persons, who provided the services and they had to collect and pay the same. Thus, this tax c...
Tag this Judgment!Airlines Agents Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN298(Mad)
Sirpurkar, J. These writ petitions are filed by Airlines Agents Association, Chennai and some air travel agents. The petitioners pray for a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by declaring the provisions contained in section 65(3) and section 67(k) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) as amended in the year 1996 and rule 2(d)(viii) of Service Tax Rules as amended as unconstitutional and void.2. During the year 1994, the then Union Finance Minister proposed to levy tax on the 'services' provided by the non-life insurance agents, stock-brokers, telephone bills, etc. By and by, other service sectors like 'consulting engineers', 'customs house agents', 'steamer agents', 'clearing and forwarding agents', 'advertising agencies' and many others came to be added and brought into the tax-net. The services provided by the 'air travel agents' came to be brought into the tax-net by way of an amendment of section 65. The 'chargi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Vs. Shanmughavel V. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN274(Mad)
Sirpurkar, J. W.P. No. 7273 of 1998 has been filed by the Chairman, Institution of Valuers, Tamil Nadu Zone, which institution was constituted in 1968 and is a registered society. The members of the petitioner institute are the estate valuers and most of them are recognised as such under section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. In the instant petition, the petitioner claims a writ of prohibition or any other writ, prohibiting the respondent from invoking the provisions of section 88, Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 1997 for the purpose of levy and collection of service tax from the members of the petitioner institute on and from 7-7-1997 in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner's members as 'valuers' of the properties, plant and machinery, etc. They also have prayed for quashing of the communication sent by the respondent on 1-5-1998 vide C. No. IV/16/29/97-STC.2. The respondent, Commissioner, Chennai, by its letter dated 1-5-1998 informed the Chairman of the Institution o...
Tag this Judgment!Kathavelu Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ802
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff, aggrieved by the order setting aside the ex parte decree. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2827 of 1982 for partition of half share in the suit property. The respondent is the second defendant. The first defendant, who is not a party to the civil revision petition, is the brother of the petitioner. Both the respondent and the other defendant were originally represented by the same counsel. But they filed separate written statements. The case was taken up for trial and issues were framed. On 22.2.1990, the evidence of P.W.1 was recorded. The matter was posted on 27.2.1990, on which date the Advocate for the respondent herein reported instructions'. The respondent was set ex parte and preliminary decree was passed on 7.3.1990. The respondent filed I. A. No. 707 of 1994 for setting aside the ex parte decree. According to him, on 27.2.1990 he was not present in Court and the Advocate had reported 'no instructions' , but he could not appear in Court becau...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »