Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

The Joint Registrar TuticorIn District Central Co-operative Bank, Tuti ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the 2nd opposite party, 1st Respondent is the complainant, and 2nd to 4th respondents are the 1st, 3rd and 4th opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The main ground raised in the above appeal is to the effect that the complainant shall avail remedies only by approaching the authorities prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The law is already settled by this Commission by rejecting the similar contentions in FA.Nos.634/2006 to 636/2006 dt.15.11.2007. By following the above principles this appeal is also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost....

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Shamanmal Laxmichand

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)24VST446(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in not considering that the assessee cannot approbate or reprobate the statement made during inspection as held in the case of Yousuff Radio v. Board of Revenue reported in [1979] 43 STC 525 (Mad)?(ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal is erroneous inasmuch as the reconciliation statement relied on by it included sales made during subsequent year 1995-96 also?(iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in having accepted the claim of the respondent for the first time that goods had been sent to other State sellers for the purpose of replacement when it was not stated so before the inspecting officers?(iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable inasmuch as it has deleted the turnover without discussing the findings of the first appellate authority in this regard?2. But when we see the orders of the Additional Appellate Assistant...

Heinz India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and a ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)19VST366(Mad)

ORDERV. Dhanapalan J.1. By consent of both sides, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are decided by a common order.2. The writ petition in W. P. No. 17012 of 2008 is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for a direction to the second respondent herein to complete the final assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 without being influenced by any circular or clarification of the first respondent herein such as Lr. No. VAT. Cell/14548/2008 A1 dated June 6, 2008 and the writ petition in W. P. No. 17013 of 2008 is filed to quash the records on the file of the first respondent in Lr. No. VAT. Cell/14548/2008 A1 dated June 6, 2008 confirming the earlier circular in Lr. No. VAT. Cell/28171/07 (VCC 760) dated June 26, 2007.3. According to the petitioner, they are a private limited company incorporated under the provis...

Ram Sun Fabi Techs Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)28VST250(Mad)

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This tax case is at the instance of the assessee, challenging the order dated September 12, 2002, in Appeal No. 397/2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition even after holding that the petitioner has filed a revised return and paid the tax is correct in law?Factual matrix3. The petitioner is a dealer in boiler components and an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruverumbur Assessment Circle, Trichy. During the year 1999-2000, the assessee filed returns showing the total and taxable turnover. In the meantime, there was an inspection by the enforcement wing officers in the business premises of the dealer and in the said inspection, it was found that two invoices dated May 2, 1999 and November 3, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 and Rs. 4,60,000,...

Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vickramasinghapuram and ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The Appellants are the opposite parties and the Respondent is the Complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant has obtained Electricity Service connection from the opposite parties and availed the said service from the year 1999 onwards. Even though the complainant was paying the nominal amount towards electricity charges for a long period, suddenly for the period from 29.01.2003 to 29.03.2003 there was a demand of Rs.29,000/- towards the electricity consumption. The complainant having approached the opposite parties to set right his grievances and due to inaction on the part of the opposite parties, has approached the District Forum by filing a complaint seeking relief as stated therein. 3. The Appellants/Opposite Parties herein resisted the complaint by contending that there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and they have demanded the amount only on the basis of th...

Ettu @ Peryamuthu and Others Vs. Smt. Mallika and Others

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The Appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum wherein the appellants are set exparte and the complaint is allowed by giving relief as stated therein. Considering various reasons as set out in the grounds of appeal, we are inclined to allow the appeal subject to the condition that the Appellants herein shall pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- by way of cost to the Respondents/complainants within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and a Memo to be filed before the District Forum reporting compliance failing which the above orders stands cancelled. On such payment, the District Forum is directed to take the complaint on file and dispose of the same within a period of three weeks....

Coonoor Club and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)22VST59(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, various clubs have questioned the applicability of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries Act, 1981 (for short, 'the Luxuries Act'). The petitioners have challenged the final assessment orders in some writ petitions. In other writ petitions, pre-assessment notices and notices calling upon the petitioner-clubs to register themselves under the Luxuries Act were also under challenge. In one writ petition, the order passed by the revisional authority confirming the appellate order upholding the assessment was also under challenge.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether Section 4 of the Luxuries Act levying tax on the luxuries provided in a hotel in respect of every room under occupation by any person is applicable to the clubs having rooms rented for accommodation for its members is covered by the Luxuries Act.3. In all these cases, the clubs have disclosed their bye-laws/articles of association, wherei...

S. Sheela Vs. the Branch Manager, Lic of India, Chennai and Another

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The Appellant is the complainant and the Respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The above appeal is filed as against the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint for default. In the grounds of appeal, various reasons are adduced by the Appellant/Complainant to set aside the order of the District Forum. We are not propose to go into all those grounds. However with a view to give one more opportunity to the Appellant, we are inclined to set aside the order of the District Forum and the District Forum is directed to take up the complaint on file and to proceed with the matter. Time to dispose of the appeal is 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 3. Accordingly the appeal is allowed....

The Special Officer, Pudukkottai Central Co-operative Bank, Pudukkotta ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant herein is the one of the opposite party and the first respondent is the complainant and the Respondents 2 to 5 are other opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The first respondent/complainant has approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service as against all the opposite parties including the Appellant. The District Forum has passed an order holding all the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible. From the records, it is evident that the deficiency can be attributed only as against the 2nd respondent/1st opposite party namely Viralimalai Co-operative Agriculture Bank, Viralimalai. It is not in dispute that the 6th Respondent herein has taken over the Bank since the Bank is in liquidation. In as much as the 6th Respondent namely the Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Execution/Liquidation), Pudukkottai District Central Co-operative Bank, Pudukkottai has taken over the assets of the Society, the only relief th...

M/S.Kalai Construction Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Raju, ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) The unnumbered C.M.P. dated 24.04.2008 on the file of the District Forum wherein the application filed by the Petitioner for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner is dismissed. The District Forum while dismissing the said application has specifically stated that if any objections raised to the report of the Advocate Commissioner who was already appointed to inspect and submit report would be taken into consideration at the time of finalizing the case. In the light of the above observation, the Petitioners interest is safeguarded. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed....