Kerala Court February 1962 Judgments
Namadeva Shenoy Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC159(Ker)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. I am not satisfied, notwithstanding the attempt made by the learned Government Pleader to support the order under attack, that there has been a real opportunity given to the petitioner to place his objections to the pre-assessment notice. Even the pre-assessment notice that has been furnished to the petitioner, viz., exhibit P-I, except attempting to comply with an empty formality, as such/does not at all give any indication as to what basis the assessing authority proposes to adopt.2. No doubt, in the pre-assessment notice, exhibit P-I dated 23rd July, 1960, there are certain defects pointed out, which, according to the officer, exist in the books of account that have been produced. After mentioning some of these aspects, ultimately the assessing authority states that the accounts have been rejected in the previous years, and it is, therefore, proposed to reject the book results and estimate the turnover to the best of his judgment.3. But, having mentioned it, ...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Moothedan Vs. Official Reveiver
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ359
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J.1. An advocate of this Court, Sri A.V. Moothedan, raises the question regarding the advocate's fee payable to him for certain proceedings under Section 4 of the Insolvency Act 1956 for the conduct of which he was engaged by the Official Receiver with the sanction of the Court. These proceedings, I am told, ended successfully ana the estate gained more than a lakh of rupees. The counter-petitioner is the Receiver, District Court, Ernakuiam.2. On 5-10-1959, the revision petitioner wrote to the Receiver that the amount Involved In the proceedings is about Rs. 1 1/4 lakhs and that the proceedings should be treated as proceedings in an original suit and if fee is calculated on that basis, he will be entitled to Rs. 3000/-, He also requested in that letter that an initial payment of Rs. 1500/- may be made to him and that the Merchants Bank of India, Ltd., one of the creditors, who had undertaken to provide funds towards the costs of the proceedings may be directed to...
Tag this Judgment!M. O. Thomas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR775(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as required by this court, has stated a case and has referred the following nine questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, consequent on the transfer of the assessees file from Kozhikode to Trichur, the Kozhikode officer had jurisdiction to initiate and complete the proceedings in question 2. Whether notice under section 34 has been served on the assessee as required by law and whether the assessment is proper and legal, in the absence of a proper service of notice on the applicant 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 34 were properly applied, especially after the identical amount had been the subject of examination by the Income-tax Officer before accepting the disclosure made by the applicant ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any material to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that any income has escaped assessment 5. Whether, in the facts and ...
Tag this Judgment!United Oil Mills Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker241; 1963CriLJ279
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. M. I. Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges two orders viz., Exts. P. 3 and P. 4.2. Ext. P. 3 is an order dated 14-4-1960, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kozhikoda Division, Kozhikode, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Rules 9 and 52A of the Central Excise Rules 1944, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 200 on him under Rule 9(2) of the said Rules.3. Ext. P-3 is also to the effect that 4342 1/4 Ibs. of cocoanut oil and sediment in 142 tins, seized in the case under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, has been confiscated to Government. There is a further direction in Ext. P.3 that the petitioner is at liberty to redeem the oil on payment of a fine of Rs. 1500/-.4. Ext. P-3 order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, taken before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin. Under Ext. P-4, the latter officer confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, K...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax, Kerala S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker264; [1962]13STC832(Ker)
1. These are revision petitions by the Department under Section 15-B (1) of the General sales Tax Act, 1125, read with Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They relate to assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The period concerned in T. R. C. Nos. 7, 8 and 10 of 1961 is the financial year 1957-58, and the period concerned in T. R. C. Nos. 9 and 11 of 1961 is the period from 1-4-1958 to 1-10-1958.2. The sales concerned were of copra and coir. Of these, copra is item No. 37 of the notification issued by the State under Sec, 5 (vii) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, and coir (including coir products) is item No. 38 of the said notification. The taxable point under the notification in respect of both the items is the last purchase in the State by a dealer who is not exempt from taxation under Section 3(3) of the Act.3. The Appellate Tribunal held that the sales of the respondents cannot be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It said:'In the instant cases ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax and anr. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC962(Ker)
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The State of Kerala through the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, North Zone, Kozhikode, seeks by this petition to review the judgment passed by this Court in T.R.C. No. 92 of 1959 on 1st November, 1960 Since reported as Haji P.K. Mammoo v. State of Kerala [1961] 13 S.T.C. 142. The only question that was in controversy in the case was whether Rule 17 (3-A) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules was valid or not. The contention raised by the assessee-petitioner was that the said rule was invalid for want of previous publication for a period of not less than four weeks as required by Section 19 (4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The tax revision case came before this Court once previously and this Court remanded the case ; and it was only after remand the question of invalidity of the rule was raised for the first time. When it was raised, the State Representative admitted that the rule was not previously published in the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Maratti Kutti Naik Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kasaragod, and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR751(Ker)
In this writ petition, Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges no doubt the orders of assessment made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the year 1958-59 under exhibit P-I as also two orders levying penalty for non-payment of the tax as evidenced by exhibit P-8 dated August 20, 1960, and exhibit P-14 dated November 30, 1960. The main contention that is urged by Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding the assessment as such is that it is arbitrary and the figures mentioned therein are not related to the facts as they exist. There is also a contention that, after having rejected the accounts of the petitioner, the assessing authority has not issued any pre-assessment notice informing the petitioner of the basis on which he proposed to make a best judgment assessment as has been laid down by several decisions of this court.The attack that is made against the order levying penalty under exhibit P-8 is that the petitioner after filing a...
Tag this Judgment!Valli Ammal Arumughom Ammal Vs. Narayan Panicker and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker16
M. S. Menon, C. J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant in S. A. No. 107 of 1958. The appeal is filed in pursuance of a declaration granted under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The judgment under appeal has been reported in Arumugham Ammal v. Nayinar Paniker, 1961 Ker LT 597 : (AIR 1962 Kerala 60).2. The appellant was the 3rd defendant in O. S. No. 1541 of 1121 of the 2nd Additional District Mun-siff's Court of Trivandrum -- the suit from which this appeal arises -- and the appellant in A. S. No. 173 of 1956 of the District Court of Trivandrum. The suit was by the 1st respondent before us. It was to set aside Ext. E, an order under Order 21, Rule 94, of the (Travan-core) Code of Civil Procedure, 1100 (Order 21, Rule 97of the (Indian) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). The decision was against him, and it was affirmed by the HighCourt of Travancore by Ext. F dated 9-12-1121.3. The rate of the appeal depends solely on the true scope and ambit of Order 21, Rule 55 of the (Tra...
Tag this Judgment!City Corporation of Trivandrum Vs. T.R. Reddiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ123
Joseph, J.1. This reference arises from a prosecution launched by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Trivand-mm under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954, The case against the accused was that he sold lac dhal otherwise known as kesari dhal as 'thuvaraparippu.' On analysis, the public analyst certified that the sample consisted of lac dhal, otherwise known as kesari dhal (Lathyrus sativus). The accused was convicted by the Corporation First Class Magistrate. Trivandrum under Section 7(2) read with Section 16 of the Act and he was sentenced by him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. The accused took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum who found that the conviction could not be upheld. The learned Judge has. accordingly made this reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge held that the conviction was not ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sankaran Nair Vs. Krishna Pillai Krishna Pillai Kaippally Madathil ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker233
Govindan Nair, J.1. This revision petition by a garnishee raises two questions. One relates to the maintainability of the revision itself and the other about the correctness of the order directing the garnishee to produce the attached amount in court forthwith.2. The first counter-petitioner had obtained a decree against the second counter-petitioner and thereafter on 23-1-1959 attached a sum of Rs. 200/-alleged to be due from the garnishee to the second counter-petitioner. The garnishee is the Executive Authority of the Chengannoor Panchayat. The second counter-petitioner -- judgment-debtor had deposited the above sum of Rs. 200/- as security in connection with the auction held by the Panchayat for the year 1958-59 relating to the right of selling meat in the Chengannoor Market. This auction, which was confirmed in favour of the judgment-debtor by the Panchayat, was set aside by the High Court in a Writ Application before the order of attachment, above mentioned, was effected. The jud...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »