Chennai Court September 2001 Judgments
A.M. Abdul Rahiman Rowther and Co. Vs. Asstt. C.C.E., Trichirapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT39(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner as appellant against the order dated 1-11-1995 of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2014 of 1985 on the file of this Court.2. The appellant is a registered firm of partnership carrying on business in manufacture of tobacco at Pudukkottai. The appellant was licensed to maintain a Central Excise Private Bonded Warehouse since 1947 for storage of non-duty paid tobacco, from time to time removal of tobacco from the bonded warehouse were accounted in accordance with Rules of Central Excise. The appellant has also maintained a factory for manufactured tobacco. Pursuant, to the investigation said to have been conducted by the Central Excise Authorities, proceedings were initiated by the Superintendent of Central Excise Mead Quarters Office, Madurai by issue of show cause notice dated 22-7-1980 wherein the appellant was charged for having received unaccounted tobacco in the warehouse of the appellant at Pudukottai wit...
Tag this Judgment!Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR792(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy , J. 1. The tax case revision is filed as against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in A.T.A. No. 8 of 1997. 2. The petitioner has sought the relief in respect of the expenses which were disallowed by the Tribunal. Advertisement expenditure : The assessee contends that the advertisement expenditure of Rs. 26,738 has been incurred by him and it has to be allowed. Similar issue has been considered by this court in T. C No. 80 of 1997--Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (No. 1) : [2002]256ITR783(Mad) and it was held that this expenditure is not connected with the agricultural activity and it has been decided against the assessee. Applying the same principle, we confirm the order of the Tribunal holding against the assessee. Repairs and maintenance of building : The assessee contends that with regard to repairs and maintenance of building, 2 per cent, which is Rs. 21,335 has been disallowed by the Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Jeyaraj C. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ926Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner seeks to question the order of the Labour Court Coimbatore in I.D. No. 49 of 1995, dated December 7, 1995.2. The petitioner was a conductor in the services of the second respondent with effect from March 5, 1996. On April 23, 1988 when he was in the route bus proceeding from Ooty to Erode, he issued a luggage ticket to a passenger totalling a sum of Rs. 62.50 including his ticket of Rs. 15.50. The total amount was mentioned in words also. But he had mistakenly wrote in the collection slip the amount of Rs. 54.75 and it was left unnoticed by oversight. The same was remitted along with the collection slip on the same night. The remittance along with the collection slip was sent to the head office and only while it was checked by Accounts Section, thediscrepancy was noted.3. The petitioner was issued with a charge-memo, dated May 1, 1988, and he was directed to give his explanation. He had approached his union who assured that they will take up th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kumar Vs. the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad78
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner is a holder of a contract carriage permit to operate within Union Territory of Pondicherry in respect of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN-49-A-2223. The said vehicle had a seating capacity of 57 in all. Since the vehicle was very old and the seating arrangement in the vehicle was crumbled one and the public did not like the seating arrangement which resulted in a thin traffic potential in the vehicle, the petitioner applied on 30-1-2001 lor replacement of the said vehicle by a later model vehicle with seating capacity of 36 in all. The said application for replacement of the vehicle was rejected by the respondent on 7-3-2001. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order of the respondent dated 7-3-2001 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to receive the application of the petitioner dated 30-1-2001 for replacement of vehicle and allow the replacement.2. The impugned order of the respondent reads as follows :--...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Snap Tap Machine Accessories ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR413]; (2002)ILLJ788Mad; (2002)1MLJ132
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The above writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 8154 of 1987 dated June 25, 1996.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award of penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Provident Fund for delay in making the payment of provident fund.3. Learned single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Provident Fund and held as follows:'.........there was no warning or even demand issued to the petitioner by the respondent. ..... The Authority constituted under the Act given a responsible duty, is expected to perform his duty promptly. ..... In my view the respondent is also responsible in a way for the lapse on the part of the employer which has encouraged him to commit subsequent defaults. ..... Since in this case, there is no assessment or determination of loss sustained by the organisation or department and as there is no application of mind at all on this aspect by the respondent, I am of the view...
Tag this Judgment!P. Abimanyu and anr. Vs. T.K. Suriya Prakash and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: [2003]130STC85(Mad)
1.The petitioners were partners in a partnership firm which they claim was dissolved under a deed dated December 31, 1991, with effect from an anterior date. Notice of that dissolution was not given to the assessing authority. At the time of dissolution, there were three partners. It is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent Suriya Prakash, who was the other partner, despite the dissolution deed, carried on business in the name of the firm in association with one Pandurangan with whom he had already entered into a partnership on January 18, 1991 and had filed monthly returns with the department, till the end of the assessment year 1992-93.2. In the assessment for the assessment year 1992-93 which was completed on October 15, 1993, a demand was raised by the authorities against the petitioners for the payment of the tax arrears of the firm. At that point, the petitioners rushed to the Civil Courtand sought a declaration that the firm had already been dissolved and that su...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaraj P. Vs. Oothu Estate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ331Mad
P.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the common order of the learned single Judge dated July 14, 2000, passed in W.P. Nos. 1984 and 9385 of 1993. We are, however, concerned with the case of the appellant, the petitioner in W.P. No. 9385 of 1993.2. The appellant herein was an employee of the first respondent-Estate. The appellant was stated to have been issued with a warning notice under Exhibit Ml, dated November 16, 1987, to the effect that he made certain illegal constructions in the land belonging to the first respondent-Estate and that he should demolish the same. Since the appellant refused to obey the directions of the first respondent-Estate, a show-cause notice under Exhibit M2, dated December 13, 1988, came to be issued as to why action should not be taken against him for disobeying the orders of the management by Virtue of Standing Orders 23 (1) and 23(12). The appellant contended that the construction in the land in question was put up by his fathe...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Service Station and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ700; [2003]129STC280(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. In W.P. No. 5391 of 2001, the petitioner had challenged the order of the second respondent made in proceedings No. Re. 1396/AAC/2000 dated February 27, 2001 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to admit the appeal filed by the petitioner on September 14, 2000 challenging the assessment order dated August 21, 2000 passed by the second respondent demanding payment of 25 per cent of the difference of tax as assessed and the tax as admitted and dispose of the appeal on merits.2. In W.P. Nos. 4355 and 4356 of 2001, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to admit the appeal preferred by the petitioners on September 14, 2000 and August 25, 2000 respectively challenging the assessment order dated August 4, 2000 and August 18, 2000 respectively of the third respondent without demanding payment of 25 per cent of the difference of the tax as assessed and the tax as admitted and dispose of the appeal on meri...
Tag this Judgment!Thanjavur Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)210; [2003]263ITR334(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner, the Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent, Income-tax Officer, Ward-I(1), Thanjavur, in file No. GIR No. 613-TI(1))/TNJ and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirappalli, in C. No. 2026/25/96-97/TN-V, respectively, dated November 26, 1996, and October 21, 1997, and quash the same. 2. Heard Mr. G. Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. Chitra Venkataraman, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner, a co-operative society governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the rules framed thereunder and is administered through the Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles, Government of Tamil Nadu, exercising powers of the Registrar of Societies. The object of the so...
Tag this Judgment!Razack Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: [2003]132STC378(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee sold chillies ex-his godown in Ariyalur in the State of Tamil Nadu to his buyers who were at Bombay and who had entered into a contract with the assessee for the purpose of fulfilling a contract for exporting the same to Odessa (USSR) from the Cochin Port. Gunny bags were delivered by the buyer to the assessee for packing the chillies. The container also was supplied by the buyer. Goods were moved in that container from Ariyalur to the port at Cochin and thereafter exported.2. The chillies sold by the assessee to the buyer had been purchased from unregistered dealers and had not suffered tax. The assessing authority therefore invoked Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the TNGST Act', and sought to levy purchase tax on the ground that though an export sale had taken place by reason of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the sale by the assessee to those buyers being the penultimat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »