Kerala Court February 1971 Judgments
C. Kunhikannan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC480(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer at Tellicherry. His shop and godown were searched by the second respondent, the Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, on 28th March, 1969. He found that certain articles which were in the shop and the godown had not been entered in the accounts of the petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Section 28(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation, exhibit P-4 dated 3rd April, 1969, stating that all the articles had been actually entered in his books of account. He also contended that the search and seizure were illegal, and that Section 28(4) of the Act was unconstitutional in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. R.S. Jhaver A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 59. In the meanwhile the goods seized by the second respondent were released to the petitioner on furnishing c...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Narayanan Nair Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC37(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. These three cases have been heard jointly and are being disposed of by this single judgment as they arise out of similar facts and involve the same question. The petitioner in O. P. Nos. 3695 and 3697 is the same. He is a dealer in rubber and hill produce at Palai. The petitioner in 0. P. No. 3936 is another such dealer at the same place. The respondent in all these cases is the Sales Tax Officer, Palai. O. P. Nos. 3695 and 3697 are to quash the orders of assessment passed by the respondent under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to summon the representatives of Messrs Munnalal Bhalotia and Co., and Messrs Bata Shoe Company, for being cross-examined by the petitioner in assessing him afresh as directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kottayam. O. P. No. 3936 is for the same reliefs in respect of the assessment against the petitioner in that case for the year 196...
Tag this Judgment!M. S. P. Rajah and Another Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Ag ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR46(Ker)
ISAAC J. - The petitioners are two of the four co-owners of an estate known as Karappara Estate in Chittoor Taluk. One of the co-owners is a minor. In 1956, the petitioners who were then the only major co-owners, entered into a partnership in respect of the above estate, admitting the two minors to the benefits of the firm. The firm got itself registered under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. For the assessment year 1962-63, it filed a return of its total income, and also applied for renewal of the registration. Renewal was refused by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chittoor, who by his order, exhibit P-5, dated November 1, 1963, assessed it as unregistered firm. It filed O. P. No. 2 of 1963 in this court to quash the above assessment. This court, by its judgment, exhibit P-3, dated June 16, 1964. set aside the assessment holding that the assessment cannot be sustained in the light of the finding of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that there was no partnership under law....
Tag this Judgment!K. T. Harindranath Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer Manantody, and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR500(Ker)
ISSAC J. - The petitioner in both these cases is the same. By these petitions, he seeks to quash four orders of assessment made under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Manantody, for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69 both inclusive.The only contention pressed by counsel for the petitioner is that the income assessed in these cases is not agricultural income as defined in section 2(a) of the Act as the lands from which the said income was derived are not lands either assessed to land revenue in the State or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the State as such. Admittedly the income assessed arose from unsurveyed lands; and the tax payable under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the said lands has not been assessed or collected. Income derived from land 'which is used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed to land revenue in the State or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by off...
Tag this Judgment!Ponkunnam Traders Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, and Ano ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR508(Ker); [1972]83ITR519(Ker)
MATHEW J. - In this proceeding the petitioner seeks to quash exhibit P-1, an order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer, the 1st respondent, on October 22, 1964, as well as the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the 2nd respondent, in revision, from the appellate order from exhibit P-1.The petitioner was a dealer in hill produce. We are concerned in this case with the assessment of the petitioner to income-tax for the assessment year 1964-65 in respect of his income from transactions in dry ginger and proper. The petitioner in the return that he made a net profit of 5% on the turnover of dry ginger and 1 1/2% on the turnover of pepper. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the correctness of the account produced by the assessee in support of the return in this respect and so he rejected the account and made a best judgment assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', adding Rs. 10,000 to the income of ...
Tag this Judgment!Saramma Varghese and ors. Vs. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker13
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The tenant, defeated in all the courts below, has come up in revision against the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the .Act). The petition was moved by the landlord for eviction on the ground that he requires the building for reconstruction as it is old and dilapidated and does not fetch reasonable rent. The importance of the locality and the prevailing high prices of the land, according to him, has necessitated the demolition and reconstruction of the building on modern lines. Necessary arrangements for the construction of the building have been made by him; the plan etc., have been submitted to the Corporation and the sanction has been obtained. He has also ability to reconstruct. The building in question is situate on the market road at Ernakulam, a little to the north of the junction, where the market road and the Cannonshed roads join. The tenant is running a hotel (the C...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. T.A. Baby and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ867
K. Sadasivan, J.1. This appeal is by the State against acquittal in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused was prosecuted Under Section 7(i) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) for selling carbonated water (orange crush) which did not con form to the standards prescribed in the Act. On analysis by the Food Inspector, the Sample taken from the accused was found to contain artificial sweetener (saccharin) at 410.0 parts per million, 0.5 per cent total solids, and 0.46 per cent total sugars. The said sample was therefore, found to be adulterated. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused, basing solely on a Single-Bench decision of this Court reported in Food Inspector, Tellicherry v. Chandu 1969 Ker L T 709 wherein it was held that prepared tea added with sugar, if not treated with a preservative, can. not retain its characteristics for a long time. In the present case also no preservative was added, and so, the learned Magistrate, relying on the above ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›