Chennai Court September 2001 Judgments
Sri Balaji Cylinders Private Limited and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC671(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged B-6 notices issued by the respondent for realisation of arrears of sales tax under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grievance of the petitioners is that as per Section 26 of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to a copy of such notice, so as to work out their remedies by way of filing revision applications before the revisional authority under Section 33. No such impugned notices were served on the petitioners. On the other hand, the notices were straightaway served on the Indian Oil Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to challenge the very B-6 notices issued under the provisions of the Act.2. On September 5, 2001, I directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions on the writ petitions. On instruction, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the...
Tag this Judgment!Mrf Limited Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Iii and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: [2003]129STC310(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Section 16(l)(a), as also Section 16(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 empower the 'assessing authority' to exercise the powers referred to therein. It is submitted by counsel that the assessing authority, as also the enforcement authority have both claimed jurisdiction to bring to tax the alleged escaped turnover.2. The enforcement wing had issued the show cause notice earlier. After proceedings before that authority was stayed by reason of legal proceedings instituted by the petitioner, the regular assessing authority, who is of a higher rank, issued a show cause notice again seeking to bring to tax the escaped turnover for the same period. A Division Bench of this Court held in the petitions filed by the assessee that if the assessment is to be revised that should properly be done by an officer who is of a rank not lesser than that of the original assessing authority, but that such an inhibition would not be there, if it is only a matte...
Tag this Judgment!N. Soundarajan and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas199(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1986, in O. S. No, 586 of 1982 on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in the suit are the appellants herein. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are the guarantors and they are defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in the suit and the first respondent in the appeal is the plaintiff and the second respondent in the appeal is the first defendant in the suit. The first defendant is the principal debtor. The suit was decreed against all the defendants in the suit, and in so far as that part of the decree passed against the principal debtor, the first defendant company is concerned, the decree has become final. This appeal is concerned only with the guarantors liability.2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as described in the plaint.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,38,327.90 from defendants Nos. 1 to 5 with further interest thereon ...
Tag this Judgment!Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR472(Mad)
ORDERChanges made by assessing officer after receiving approval from IAC of draft assessment orderCatch Note:Assessing officer made draft order in which he treated loss incurred by assessee as normal business loss--Draft assessment approved by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B--Thereafter assessing officer changed his view of the nature of loss in transaction relating to shares and considered those losses to be speculative loss and capital loss--Commissioner (Appeals) reversed order of assessing authority but Tribunal restored order of assessing authority--Same not justified--Assessing officer could not have meddled with draft assessment order after it had received approval of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.Ratio:Assessing officer could not have meddled with draft assessment order after it received approval of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.Held:Having regard to the effect of the order of approval given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madan and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)172; [2002]254ITR445(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J. 1. The Revenue contends that when the owner of the lorry leases it to another for an agreed rental for a specific period, the owner cannot claim the higher rate of depreciation provided in Appendix I, entry III(2)(ii), under the sub-heading 'Machinery and plant', the appendix being the Appendix to the Income-tax Rules. That entry reads as under :'Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire.'2. Owners of vehicles who used it for their own purposes are allowed to claim depreciation at the normal rates. Owners of vehicles mentioned in the entry when they allow it to be used for a price are allowed to obtain a higher rate of depreciation. The distinction is based upon the fact that a person who obtains the temporary right to use of the vehicle on payment of a charge price is likely to, by the nature of his user, such user being for the purpose of the hirer and not the owner, depreciate the value of the vehicle faster.3. All suc...
Tag this Judgment!Geetha Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR649(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee contends that electrical installations and sanitary fitting in a hotel buildings, are also required to be treated as building for the purpose of determining the depreciation for the building the assessment year 1979-80. That contention of the assessee having been rejected by the Revenue as also by the Tribunal, the correctness of the Tribunal's view is questioned by the assessee in this reference before us.2. Learned senior counsel contended that once the electrical installations are embedded in the building and the sanitary fittings are fitted on to the bath rooms attached to the hotel rooms, they become part of the building and, therefore, higher initial depreciation provided for under Section 32(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as it stood during the assessment year, should have been allowed in respect of those fittings as well. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel :...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaboopathi Ammal Vs. Chinnathambi Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ63
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant in O.S, No. 316/1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti praying the Court to declare that the decree passed on 28.3.1985 in O.S. No, 165/85 against the plaintiff and Sembulinga Padayachi in favour of the defendant is not valid in law; in the alternative to allow the plaintiff to defend the case by directing the proceedings in O.S, No, 165/85 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti to reopen and to hear the case afresh and finally to issue an order of injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree in O.S. No. 165/85.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the respondent/defendant obtained ex parte decree against the plaintiff and Sembulinga Padayachi in O.S. No.165/85 on the file of District Munsif Court, Panruti on the foot of the pronote executed by them on 19.2.1984 in favour of the defe...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Leather Fertilizers and Company Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC38(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent dated January 19, 1999 in his proceedings in CST No. 565296/94-95, quash the same and for a consequential direction to accept the 'C' forms produced by the petitioner pertaining to the inter-State sale of leather meal for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition is that the petitioner is an assessee on the files of the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vellore (Rural), Vellore District. The monthly returns filed by the petitioner claiming exemption on its transaction of leather meal was rejected by the respondent and the petitioner challenged the said order in W.P. No. 842 of 1995 and the said writ petition was admitted and interim stay was granted. Thereafter, the respondent passed the assessment order for the year 1994-95 in CST No. 565296 dated December 24, 1996 arid the said order was also challenged by the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Panneerselvam Vs. Inspector General of Police, (Protection of Civil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ480
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to register the complaint of the petitioner under the provisions of Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with the provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code for various offences allegedly committed by the accused persons.3. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made in the writ petition and in the complaint. However, it is not denied that a complaint has been received nor it is denied that the complaint has not been formally registered.4. Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 contemplates the recording of the F.I.R. Sub-rule (3) to Rule 5 enabled the person aggrieved to send the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police conc...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Subramaniam and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ476
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.7.1995, whereunder, the fourth respondent was transferred to the Tiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation as Executive Engineer. It is the contention of the petitioners that the third respondent is bound to fill up the post of Executive Engineer according to the seniority from among the eligible employees of the third respondent Corporation. The petitioners were initially working under the Tiruchirapalli Municipality. Subsequently by virtue of the Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation Act (Act 27 of 1994) this Municipality was converted to a Corporation and the petitioners are continuing as such under the said corporation. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Section 9(6) of the Act, it must be deemed that the petitioners have become employees of the Corporation. The fourth respondent, who was working under the Tut...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »