Chennai Court April 2009 Judgments

Ganesan M. Vs. Management of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ245Mad

K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated August 21, 2006 passed in W.P. No. 8471/1998 by Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar.2. The appellant joined in the services of the first respondent in the year 1970. He was lastly working as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical), 0 & M East, Sivagiri, Periyar Electricity System. His last drawn wages was Rs. 1,272/- per mensem. The appellant was removed from service by the final order dated April 4, 1985 with retrospective effect from August 8, 1993 F.N. on certain allegations of misconduct. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the final order was rejected by the Chairman of the first respondent by proceedings dated October 28, 1986 .3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman of the first respondent, the appellant raised a dispute before the concerned Conciliation Officer. But the Conciliation proceedings failed which resulted in the dispute being referred for adjudication to the second responde...

M.C. Sivagamui and anr. Vs. M.C. Kuppusamy and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2010Mad1

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property.2. The brief averments found in the application filed by the plaintiffs:The plaintiffs are represented by their power of attorney K. N. Sudhakar. The suit is filed for partition of the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property. The defendants have no right to alienate the suit property or their interest therein. In any case the suit property remains undivided. The defendants cannot earmark and sell away the portion of the suit property. The defendants have proposed to put up some construction on the suit land. If they are allowed to do so, it will not only change the character of the suit property, but also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the defendants should be restrained from dealing with the suit property.3. The third defendant has simpl...

M/S. Rajalakshmi Textile Processors Pvt Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissio ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

P. KARTHIKEYAN The appellants are job workers engaged in textile processing. They worked under the compounded levy scheme and paid duty on the basis of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) determined by the Commissioner. They successfully challenged the ACP fixed by the Commissioner and got their monthly liability reduced. They claimed refund of the excess duty they had paid when the ACP initially fixed by the Commissioner was the basis for payment of duty, as per the following details. The orders impugned in appeals sanctioned the refund and credited the same in the Consumer Welfare Fund. The lower authorities found that the appellants had failed to substantiate that the excess duty paid by them had not been passed on to their customers. The lower appellate authority found that the appellants had placed reliance on various judicial authorities which had held that the assessee could not be held to have passed on the excess duty when the price before and after the duty liability was chan...

Mettur Spinning Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Cce Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram On 27.4.2002, the officers of DGCEI, Coimbatore visited the factory premises of Mettur Spinning Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MSML) who are manufacturers of cotton yarn, on the basis of specific information that they were manufacturing and clearing yarn without accountal thereof in their books of accounts, without following Central Excise procedure and without payment of Central Excise duty. Shortage of cotton was noticed on the date of visit. Cone labels with the names of Shalini Textiles and Vishnu Textiles and HDPE bags meant for packing cotton yarn with the name of MSML, Shalini Textiles and Vishnu Textiles, were noticed in the packing section of the factory; residences of the Deputy Sales Manager and Factory Manager of MSML and of P.Balakrishnan, Managing Director of C.P. Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CPSML) were visited and documents such as personal diaries and computer printouts and delivery challans etc. relating to annual prod...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Magna Electro Castings Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN79(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, an appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 10.12.2007 passed in ITA No. 2855/Mds/2005 in respect of the assessment year 2002-03.2. The facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:- The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture of iron castings, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 admitting nil income. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 30.09.2002 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 24.06.2004. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has not restricted the deduction allowable under Section 80 HHC to 70% as applicable for that year and issued a notice under Section 148 and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 restricting the assessee's claim. Against the same, the assessee filed a...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Sekar Trust and Peegee Trust

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Mad)390

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. All these 15 appeals are filed at the instance of the revenue against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 24.02.2004 made in I.T.As. Nos. 2023 to 2033 of 2003 and 2045 to 2048 of 2003. Tax Case Appeals Nos. 866 to 870 of 2004 and 454 to 459 of 2005 arise out of I.T.As. Nos. 2023 to 2033 of 2003 relate to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000 in respect M/s. Sekar Trust and Tax Case Appeals Nos. 929 to 932 of 2004 arise out of ITA Nos. 2045 to 2048 of 2003 relate to the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 pertaining to M/s. Peegee Trust.2. The appeals in T.C. (As.) Nos. 866 to 870 of 2004 and 454 to 459 of 2005 were admitted by this Court on 10.02.2005 on the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in the case of the assessee Trust, the beneficiaries and their shares are determinate and, therefore, ...

Valarmathi Oil Industries Rep. by Its Partner, K. Srinivasan S/O. A.M. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad180

ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order, dated 14.11.2007 made in C.M.P.No.4686 of 2007 in C.A. No. 167 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem.2. It is an admitted fact that the case in C.C. No. 308 of 2006 was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Salem on the complaint given by the respondent herein that the cheque was issued by the second petitioner herein on behalf of the first petitioner as partner of the firm, however, the same was dishonoured by the bank, due to insufficient funds. According to the respondent, after issuance of the legal notice to the petitioner, the complaint was given under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners. During the pendency of the criminal case, at request of both the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. It is seen that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat under Section 20(1)(i)(b), 20(1)(ii) of Lega...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. I.Q. Systems

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)26VST491(Mad)

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By framing the following question of law, the Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal is right in having deleted the penalty levied under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the assessment year 1992-93 when this honourable court in the case of P.S. Apparels v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1994] 94 STC 139 has upheld levy of penalty in respect of REP licence from the assessment year 1992-93 onwards2. The penalty was deleted by the Tribunal observing as follows:For the same dealer and for the year 1995-96, the penalty levied by the assessing officer has been deleted by this bench in T.A. No. 395/1998, dated January 5, 2000. The following observations are made by us in that order. The case of the assessees from the beginning is that ...

V.P. Sankaran Vs. R. Uthirakumar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad166

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 125 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 98,600/- from this petitioner on the strength of a promissory note executed by him on 10.07.2005. This petitioner filed the written statement, contending inter alia, that as he stood as guarantor for his friend by name Rangasamy, who borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the Finance Company run by the plaintiff and this petitioner put his signature and his left thumb impression on a blank pro-note, in which, only numericals of Rs. 5,000/- written at the top, and that the said Rangasamy discharged the loan. However, the plaintiff did not return the above said blank pro-note to the defendant and that the said document has been forged and fabricated, with material alteration as if, the defendant owes Rs. 85,000/- to the plaintiff.2. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Eviden...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Maharaja Readymade

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)26VST316(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The correctness of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 12, 1998 made in MTA No. 206 of 1997 is canvassed in this revision.2. The assessee, a dealer in ready-made garments, reported a total and taxable turnover in a sum of Rs. 14,87,719.45 and Rs. 11,29,826, respectively after claiming exemption on the turnover of Rs. 3,57,893.45 in the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95. The accounts were called for and checked. The assessing officer found certain defects, such as gross profit working out to 36 per cent, which he regarded as very high. No separate stock account for the taxable goods, i.e., ready-made garments purchased from other States, was maintained. Ready-made goods purchased from Asoka Dresses were not supported by bill or delivery note. In view of the above defects found, the accounts of the assessee were rejected as incomplete and incorrect and best judgment assessment was made and penalty was levied un...