Kerala Court April 1971 Judgments
Bhagwan Ganesh Pai Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC460(Ker)
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner who is a firm dealing in different varieties of yarn including nylon contended that the turnover of the sale of nylon yarn during the assessment year 1966-67 is liable to sales tax at the point of first sale only in the series of sales by successive dealers in the State at the reduced rate of 2 per cent. in view of the Notification No. G.O. Ms. 361/64/Rev. dated 4th June, 1964, issued by the Kerala Government under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the reason that nylon yarn is artificial silk yarn. The Tribunal has not specifically considered the point raised by the assessee.2. The plea on behalf of the revenue that the point was not raised before the Tribunal cannot be accepted for the reason that ground No. 4 before the Tribunal deals with the specific point mooted before us.3. The notification referred to exempts staple fibre yarn and artificial silk yarn from sales tax at all points in the series of sales by su...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Jayasankar Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR445(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. One Sreemathi Amini Bhavani Varasiyar and her two minor children formed a Marumakkathayam tarwad. She died on March 7, 1964. The petitioner is her brother; and he is the accountable person for the estate duty payable under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, on the principal value of all property passing on the death of Smt. Varasiyar. In the matter of assessment under the Act, the petitioner contended before the respondent, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Ernakulam, that the deceased had only one-third right in the tarwad property, and that he was not liable to estate duty as the principal value of the said one-third right was below the taxable limit of Rs. 50,000. The respondent, by his order, exhibit P-1, dated March 31,1969, rejected the above contention, and assessed the petitioner to pay a duty of Rs. 711.27 including interest payable under Section 53 of the Act. Accordingly, he issued a notice of demand, exhibit P-2, dated March 31, 1969, to the petitioner calling up...
Tag this Judgment!Tushar Trading Co. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC214(Ker)
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax at 10 per cent. on the turnover of Rs. 26,460.19 representing the value of empty gunnies, mats, coir twine, etc., used for transporting copra. The petitioner is a dealer in coconuts, pepper, copra, etc., and was assessed to sales tax for the year 1963-64 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The assessee raised two contentions : (1) In computing the total turnover for assessment Rs. 26,460.19 have to be deducted in view of Rule 9(f)(ii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, and (2) even if the said deduction is not allowable the disputed turnover has to be taxed only at 2 per cent. at which copra was taxed on the ground that the sale of packing materials is only incidental to the sale of copra. Both these contentions were overruled by the Tribunal. The first contention was not pressed before us.3. The second ground which alone was argued was that the turnover of...
Tag this Judgment!Cherppan Nadar Narayanan Nadar Vs. Kumaran Kochummini and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker37
Mathew, J.1. The 2nd defendant has preferred this second appeal against the decree passed by the District Court, Trivandrum. dismissing the appeal from the preliminary decree passed by the Munsif allowing a suit for redemption of a mortgage, Ext. P1, of the year 1097 M. E. executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1 to 5,2. The plaint property was kandukrishi thanathu land. The Special Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara, by Ext D1 order passed during the pendency of the suit, granted registry of the property to the defendants 1 to 5. The 2nd defendant, among other things, contended that the plaintiffs have lost their right to redeem as the registry did not enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs. This contention was overruled by the courts below. Hence this second appeal.3. When the second appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he found difficulty in reconciling the decision of the Division Bench in Neelakanta Pillai v. Madhavan Nair 1965 Ker L. T. 537 and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›