Kerala Court February 1971 Judgments
V.S. Narayanan Nair and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC312(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in rubber and hill produces. He purchases rubber within the State and sells it mostly inter-State. His main customer is Messrs Dunlop India Ltd. Rubber is taxable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, at the point of last purchase in the State. In State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held that if sales tax is not charged under a law of a State at the point of sale, no tax can also be chargeable on inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This decision was rendered on 10th November, 1964. However the petitioner collected sales tax on inter-State sales of rubber. On 9th June, 1969, the Vice-President acting as President of India promulgated the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance (4 of 1969). This was repealed and replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, which came into force on 30th August, 1969. Both the Act and the Ordinance contained mor...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Timber Syndicate Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC565(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner was assessed under the Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1121, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50. From the orders of assessment he filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant, Commissioner, Trichur, on 24th September, 1958. The appeals were partly allowed. But the petitioner was not satisfied with that; and under Section 18 of the Cochin Act, he filed two revision petitions before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by its order exhibit P-1 dated 2nd December, 1968, rejected the revision petitions on the ground that it was not a competent authority to hear revisions under Section 18 of the Cochin Act. This writ petition has been filed to direct the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear and dispose of the revisions under Section 18 of the Cochin Act, to quash the order exhibit P-1 of the Board of Revenue, and to direct it to restore the revision petitions and return the same to the petitioner for presenting the same to the C...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishnan Vs. Gopala Moothan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker15
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord applied for eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) saying that the building is required for the landlord's own occupation. Arrears of rent was also put forward as a ground but as the arrears were subsequently deposited, that ground was not pressed. On the question of requirement of the building for own occupation, the Rent Controller held that the claim is not bona fide and the petition was accordingly dismissed. But in appeal, the learned appellate authority held otherwise and allowed the petition which has been confirmed in revision by the learned District Judge.2. The claim of bona fide requirement for own occupation is challenged on the ground that the petitioner is residing in his family house which is owned by him though along with other members of the joint family; but the case of the petitioner (respondent herein) is that the joint fam...
Tag this Judgment!Cheria Bappu Haji Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC522(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner was assessed for the year 1965-66 by the Sales Tax Officer, Ottapalam, the first respondent, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. His turnover was determined at Rs. 14,974.01, of which Rs. 7,480.91 was taxed at 2 per cent. and Rs. 7,493.10 was taxed at 10 per cent. Thus the tax payable by him was Rs. 898.93, consisting of Rs. 149.62 at the 2 per cent. rate and Rs. 749.31 at the 10 per cent. rate. But in calculating the tax, the Sales Tax Officer showed the tax payable at 10 per cent. as Rs. 74.93, instead of Rs. 749.31; and he issued a notice of final assessment and refund order, exhibit P-1 dated 23rd September, 1966, showing the total tax payable by the petitioner as Rs. 224.55 and allowing him a refund of Rs. 69.84, after setting off the above amount of tax against a sum of Rs. 294.39 which he had already paid as tax. The Sales Tax Officer noticed the arithmetical error, which he had made in calculating the tax as per his order of assessment. He re...
Tag this Judgment!Chembilali NooruddIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC449(Ker)
P. Unnikrishna Kurup, J. 1. This tax revision has been filed by the assessee, a merchant dealing in grocery, cashew, copra, coconuts, etc. The revision relates to the assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65. The Sales Tax Officer, Tellicherry, issued a pre-assessment notice to the assessee for the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 on 18th March, 1965, under Section 12 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The notice directed the assessee to file its objections to the proposals contained in the notice within 3 days. The assessee's case is that he received the notice only on 27th March, 1965, and he hastened to the authorities with a request for extension of time but was informed that the assessment had been made on 27th March, 1965, itself. He then filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed. The matter was taken up before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and it was contended that since a reasonable opportunity had not been given to him to represe...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Indian Naval Canteen Control Board and ors. Vs. Industrial ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ105Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. A dispute arose between the management of the Indian Naval Canteen Service, Willingdon Island, Cochin (hereinafter referred to as 'the Canteen Service') and its workmen. Ten issues were referred for adjudication to the first respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut. That was I.D. No. 63 of 1965. During the pendency of this case, the management terminated the service of two of its workmen, one Pavithran and another Gangadharan. They complained before the Industrial Tribunal against the action of the management under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These complaints were registered as I.D. Nos. 89 and 99 of 1965.2. The employer contended that the Canteen Service is not an industry, and that the Industrial Tribunal was not competent to entertain any of the cases. In I.D. 63, the employer contended that the workmen were not entitled to any of the demands raised by them. In the other two cases, the workmen complained that the termination of their servi...
Tag this Judgment!C. Velayudhan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, KeralA ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR127(Ker)
The judgment of the court was delivered byUNNIKRISHNA KURUP J. - The Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 :'(1) Having regard to the fact that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, has upheld the estimate of income independently of the system of accounting followed by the assessee, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal has been correct in finding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner went wrong in holding that it was not open to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to include the value of the 1,484 lbs. of pepper alleged to have been carried over to the subsequent year in the assessable income for the year in question (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!United Timber and Cashew Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC526(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner was assessed by the first respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Cannanore, under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, for the year 1962-63, by his order exhibit P-3 dated 20th March, 1967. The assessment proceedings were taken and completed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of this Act. The petitioner filed an appeal from exhibit P-3 before the second respondent, the Additional Appellate Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, under Section 34 of the 1963 Act. The second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 34 provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax or other amounts admitted by the appellant to be due. There is no dispute that it is not necessary that the proof of payment of the tax or other admitted amount should accompany the appeal, but it is sufficient that it is furnished before the hearing of the ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Muhammed and ors. Vs. Parakkat Nayer Veetil thevazhi Tarwad Manag ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Ker290
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This Second Appeal by two of the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant (impleaded as Defendants 80 & 81) in a suit for redemption together with amounts due by way of damages and otherwise, has come on before a Full Bench as the constitutional validity of Section 4-A of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 was sought to be raised. But as would appear hereinafter, the vires of the section does not really appear to arise,--at any rate not at the present stage,--and the case has to be disposed of, otherwise than by pronouncement on the constitutional issue.2. The 68 items of plaint properties covering nearly an extent of 130 acres, and comprising wet lands palliyals, forests, parambas and kudiyiruppus belonging to the plaintiff's tarwad, and were allotted on partition, by the decree in O. S. No. 12 of 1936 to her tavazhi. The main tarwad had mortgaged Items 1 to 67 by Ext. B-116 dated 31-3-1905 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to one Pankunny M...
Tag this Judgment!thekkittil Gopalankutty Nair Vs. Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthaseah
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Ker280
Raman Nayak, C.J.1. I have no doubt that a proceeding taken by a magistrate under provisions like Sections 107 - 110, 133, 144, 145 and 488 of the Criminal P. C. is a judicial proceeding see Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushailiya, AIR 1964 SC 416; indeed, the contrary has not been urged before us. That being so, I should think that in the state of the Indian authorities (whatever to the contrary counsel for the respondent plaintiff might think he has succeeded in extracting from certain observations by Sellers and Devlin, L. JJ. in Lincoln v. Daniels. 1962-1 QB 237--after all when, as in this case, the question is, what does public policy dictate under Indian conditions, Indian authorities must be of greater value) the per se defamatory statements made by the appellant defendant about the respondent plaintiff in a petition he submitted to the (Executive) First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam, with a view to initiating proceedings u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »