Kerala Court February 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Central ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC443(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a petition for reviewing the order in T.R.C. No. 45 of 1963 dated 2nd June, 1964. That decision is in Mathai v. State of Kerala 1964 K.L.T. 483.2. A few facts are necessary to understand the scope of this petition. The assessee was a licensee under Section 9 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. For the year 1955-56 he submitted a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 3,03,766-11-6 and claimed exemption on the whole of the turnover on the ground that he is a mere commission agent. Exemption was granted by the Sales Tax Officer and by an order dated 15th February, 1957, it was found that no sales tax was payable for the year and a licence fee of Rs. 500 was imposed on him. More than three years after the close of the assessment year 1955-56, that is, after 31st March, 1959, notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Quilon, on the assessee purporting to act under Section 15(1) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. This notice was served on the as...
Madhavan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ765Ker
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. Four points are urged in support of this petition. None of them seem to me to furnish any ground for interference.2. The first is that some of the petitioners do not actually employ any beedi-makers but get their beedis made by independent contractors. If that be so, they have nothing to fear since the impugned notifications, Exs. P. 1 and P. 2, state in express terms that they apply only to employees. They do not apply to Independent contractors and leave the concerned petitioners unaffected.3. The second is that the minimum wages fixed are considerably higher than those fixed in the neighbouring States of Madras and Mysore which compete in our markets. The result would be to kill the beedi Industry in this State. This is no doubt a very important consideration which the appropriate Government must bear in mind in fixing minimum wages but it is hardly Justiciable. In particular, I fail to see how the fact that other State Governments have fixed lower rates for t...
Official Receiver, Ernakulam District Court Vs. Kassim Moosa Sait and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker73
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The Official Receiver, Ernakulam, the appellant, started proceedings under the Travancore-Cochin Insolvency Act for declaration that the wakf deed, the original of Ex. P-1, executed by the first respondent on 10th September 1936, was a document not intended to be acted upon and was intended to be used only as a shield against any future claim that might be made against him by any creditor. The insolvency court agreed with this and allowed the petition. The first respondent, the insolvent, took up the matter in appeal before the lower appellate court; and the District Judge disagreed with the insolvency court and dismissed the petition. The contention of the insolvent was that the wakf was created even earlier than the date of Ex. P-1; that Ex. P-1 only affirmed it; and that the subsequent conduct, whatever it be, could not have made the wakf once constituted any the less a wakf. It was these contentions that were accepted by the District Judge. In the second appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›