Kerala Court June 1968 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.
V. Mohammed Ismail Rowther Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC410(Ker)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner seeks by this proceeding to quash exhibits P-l to P-5, the orders assessing the petitioner to sales tax in respect of his turnover as dealer in hill produce for the years 1959-60 to 1962-63 and 1965-66 and for refund of the tax already collected thereunder. Under the Schedule to the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, the turnover of hill produce is taxable only at the last purchase point within the State. The assessments here are under the Central Sales Tax Act, and Section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides :The tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce whether such sales fall within Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 3 shall be levied and collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in Sub-section (3) in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced.2. In State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231, it was held after referring to...
V. Madhavan Nair Vs. M.P. Gopala Panicker and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker97; 1969CriLJ482
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The recent decision in State of Kerala v. Wilfred, 1968 Ker LT 57 by Sadasivan, J., has been responsible for this revision petition. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the magistrate; and the magistrate sent the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police for investigation. After investigation the police laid a charge-sheet; and when the case came up for further trial, objection was taken that in view of the decision mentioned above, the Public Prosecutor should not conduct the prosecution and the petitioner, as complainant, must make his own arrangements for the prosecution of the case. This the magistrate has accepted; and the correctness of this decision is being challenged before me. 3. Sadasivan J. refers to the Division Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Prasad Gupta v. Kripa Shanker, AIR 1967 All, 468 and observes: 'The Magistrate may initiate action either on a complaint or on a police report an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›