Chennai Court December 2008 Judgments

Span Surgicals Company Rep. by Its Proprietor Dhiraj, Coimbatore Vs. D ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The above appeal is filed by raising the ground that the District Forum has allowed the complaint by setting opposite party as exparte without ensuring as to whether proper service is effected or not. From the records it is seen that at one instance when notice is ordered initially, the postal cover was not claimed by the opposite party, inspite of the intimation given to them. The District Forum after recording the said fact ordered paper publication. According to the learned counsel for appellant, even today the appellant / opposite party is carrying out the business in the very same place and inadvertently due to the mistake of some of the employees of the firm, the cover might not have been received and as such, prayed to grant further opportunity. Even though we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum, since the oppos...

P.R.P. Granites Represented by Its Chief Accounts Officer R. Arumugam ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Mad)371

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed questioning the correctness of the assessment order dated 31.03.2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. ('the Act for short). The petitioner, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of exploration, exploitation, manufacture, process and production of polished and dressed granite in assorted dimensions and a 100% Export Oriented Unit by virtue of approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce under Section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951. While filing its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 26.02.2004 the petitioner claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act for the period from 01.04.2002 to 22.09.2002 and deduction under Section 10B of the Act for the period from 23.09.2002 to 31.03.2003. The case had been taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and the petitioner was heard through the representative. Subseque...

Eastern Electrics Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)22VST544(Mad)

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. In both the cases, the assessees are aggrieved by the levy of penalty under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 ('the AST Act', in short). According to them, the Department cannot do so, and rely on S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons v. Commercial Tax Officer-III, Virudhunagar [2004] 136 STC 606 (Mad).2. When the matters came up for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the above case was decided ignoring earlier decisions of our court S. Rajamani v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1980] 46 STC 451 (Mad), Hindustan Import Export Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1988] 69 STC 195 (Mad), and above all Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa : [1983]2SCR363 . He submitted that S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons v. Commercial Tax Officer-III, Virudhunagar [2004] 136 STC 606 (Mad) might require reconsideration.3. The learned Special Government Pleader very fairly placed all the decisions for and against the Department and argued the mat...

Unik Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Its Secretary, M ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(241)ELT338(Mad)

ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. A Notification bearing No. 25 (Re-2007)/2004-2009 dated 29.08.2007 issued by the second respondent / Director General of Foreign Trade and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy - 2004 - 09 is under challenge in all these writ petitions. All the writ petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are either importers or traders of betel nuts. They claim that they are in the practice of importing betel nuts in substantial quantities every year from South East Asian countries like Indonesia and Thailand. According to them, they can conveniently import the same through anyone of the ports on the Eastern Cost. But, the respondents issued the impugned Notification, there...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Thangamani

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Mad)742; [2009]309ITR15(Mad); [2009]177TAXMAN499(Mad)

K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. These tax cases are at the instance of the revenue and the following substantial question of law is raised for our consideration:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the refunds collected illegally by production of bogus TDS certificates by the assessee could under no circumstances be the income of the assessee?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that amounts earned fraudulently cannot be treated as income and taxed?Factual Matrix:2. The asessment relates to the years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The assessee is engaged in tax consultancy and audit work. In a search conducted in the residential premises as well as in the office of the assessee on 14.3.1989, certain incriminating documents were seized. From the documents so seized by the Income Tax Department, it was revealed that the assessee had been claiming and receiving income tax refunds by filing bogus TDS c...

iqra Traders Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST245(Mad)

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The assessee is a dealer in granite. For the assessment year 1994-95, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' in short) with regard to the sale of rough granite blocks to two exporters, viz. Chettinad Granites and Apex Exports. The Assessing Officer found that the rough granite blocks sold by the assessee were exported as polished sized granite blocks which are commercially different from rough granite blocks and therefore, the assessee cannot claim the exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. Therefore, the sale of rough granite blocks was proposed for assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('TNGST Act' in short). Aggrieved, the assessee filed A.P. Nos. 3 and 5 of 1995, which were allowed. The Joint Commissioner, invoking his suo motu powers of revision, set aside the above orders, confirming the original orders. The assessee thereafter filed W.P. No. 10390 of 2004 with regard t...

C. Packirisamy Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]315ITR293(Mad)

K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This tax case is directed against the order dated June 25, 2008, in I.T.A. No. 1288/2006 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Tiruchi, dated February 27, 2006, in I.T.A. 110/05-06/2077 and the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Nagapattinam, dated March 28, 2005 in assessment number and year GI: 4227P/2002-03.2. The following are the substantial questions of law raised for our consideration:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction under the opening capital account for 2002-03 when the returns filed for 1996-97 to 2001-02 were accepted by the Department?2. Whether the opening capital account for 2002-03 can be rejected without rejecting the closing balance declared for 2001-02 in the respective return?3. Whether the Tribunal has considered the fact that the appellant is a ...

Tvl. S. Rukmangathan Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and the Sales Tax ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)2VST371(Mad)

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The question raised in this revision is, whether the penalty levied under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is sustainable, when the assessment order is one made to the best of judgment under Section 12(2) of the Act.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the assessee's accounts were called for and it was found that the return filed by the assessee was incorrect and incomplete and therefore, to the turn over, 15% was added towards freight and unloading charges and 25% was added towards Gross Profit and thus taxable turn over was determined. The Assessing Officer, thereupon, proceeded to levy penalty under Section 12(5) of the Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that when the assessment is a best judgment one, penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Act cannot be levied and it can be levied only when the assessment is under Section 12(4) of the Act and t...

South India Corporation Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commission ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas200(Mad)

V. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge of this Court made in W.P. No. 13757 of 1996 dated 20.08.2003.2. The aggrieved writ petitioner had filed the appeal against the said order. The above writ petition has been filed before the learned Single Judge for issuing a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent dated 28.06.1996 and quash the same.3. Brief facts of both parties in the writ petitions are as follows:3(i) The petitioner establishment was incorporated on 31.1.1990 as 'Chettinad Granites Limited' under the provisions of the Companies Act. The company known as South India Corporation Ltd., incorporated on 5.9.1935 under Pudukottai Companies Regulation Act 1929, as a Private Limited company and subsequently became a deemed Public Company and engaged solely in trading activities. The Board of Directors of Chettinad Granites Limited, with a view to utilising ...

In Re: G.V. Films Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]150CompCas415(Mad)

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. GV Films Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'demerged company', is the petitioner in C.P. No. 96 of 2008 ; GV Studio City Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'first resulting company'), is the petitioner in C.P. No. 97 of 2008 and GV New Media Technologies Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'second resulting company'), is the petitioner in C.P. No. 98 of 2008.2. C.P. No. 96 of 2008 is filed by GV Films Ltd., under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to sanction the scheme of arrangement, whereby, GV Studios Division of GV Films Ltd., the petitioner in C.P. No. 96 of 2008, is proposed to be hived off and transferred to the company known as GV Studio City Ltd., the petitioner in C.P. No. 97 of 2008, and GV New Media Technologies Division of the demerged company is proposed to be demerged and transferred to the company known as GV New Media Technologies Ltd., the petitioner in C.P. No. 98 of 2008.3. The present petitions are filed for sanction of a scheme ...