Kerala Court November 1975 Judgments
Kerala Tile and Clay Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR597(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The following two questions are referred for a decision by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer is justified in law in imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(a)for failure to file the return in time as required in Section 159(1), afterimposing penal interest under Section 139(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act,1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is legal on the part of the Income-tax Officer to impose two penalties for the sameoffence, namely, delay in filing the return of income as required under Section 139(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership concern whose accounting year ended on 31st March, 1962, for the assessment year 1962-63. The firm was liable to file a return before September 30, 1962, On September 29, 1962, the managing partner applied to the Income-tax Officer for 2 months' time for filin...
Tag this Judgment!V. Radhakrishna Eradi Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR30(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The question raised in this original petition is as regards the construction of Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood before the Act was amended in 1975), and Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Is the Tax Recovery Officer, conducting an investigation under Rule 11 of the said Schedule concerning matters coming within the ambit of Rule 16, bound to act in accordance with the principles mentioned in Section 281? No direct authority has been referred to me on this question, and I shall, therefore, deal with it on general principles. 2. Before I consider the relevant statutory provisions, I shall briefly state the facts and the respective contentions of the parties. The petitioner is a partner of a firm engaged in timber and banking business. His firm granted a loan of Rs. 25,000 to another firm called M.K. Raru & Sons on the basis of an equitable mortgage created by M.K. Raru, one of the partners of the latter firm, in certain properties belongin...
Tag this Judgment!T.T. Pylunny Royal Smiths Vs. Union of India and (Uoi) ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT705(Ker)
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a small scale Industrial unit known by the name 'Royal Smiths'. It has its establishment at Kunnamkulam, Trichur District. He is manufacturing steel furniture for home consumption. By Notification dated 30.4.1968, marked in the case as Ex. Pl, Small scale industries whose turnover during a financial year does not exceed rupees 2 lakhs were given exemption from payment of excise duty on the goods cleared upto a value not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. The exact wording of the notification would be important. So the relevant portion of which is extracted below:'In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts steel furniture falling under item No. 40 of the first schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) upto a value not exceeding rupees fifty thousand, cleared on or after the first day of April in any financial year by or on be...
Tag this Judgment!Thayambath Janaki W/O Late Koora Raman, Thayambath House, Vellur Amsom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)0158B
V. P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. - I see no merit in this writ petition field to declare Section 18 and 18-A of the Abkari Act and the Rules and Notifications as ultra vires; to quash Exts. P1, P4 and P6; and to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the dues left by her husband who is dead; to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 not to proceed against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, and for incidental reliefs.2. One Koora Raman was an Abkari contractor in respect of T.S. No. 28 in Payyannur Range for 1968-69. He died on 16-8-1971. It is not disputed that he was in arrear for a sum of Rs. 11,588.87 in respect of arrears of bid amount. The petitioner, his wife and the legal representative, was called upon to satisfy the arrears. She paid Rs. 2,000/-said to be under protest - on 31-12-1971, and a further sum of Rs. 600/- on 12-1-1972 (vide Exts. P2 and P3). It was thereafter that Ext. P1 notice threatening a sale of the property of the deceased which ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. M.J. Cherian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1975
Reported in: [1979]117ITR371(Ker)
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The questions referred to us by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivan-drum, are in these terms :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the selling of paddy at prices higher than that fixed under the Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1965, and Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1968, cannot be taken cognizance of by any one except by an authority constituted by the statute for implementing the penal provisions of the Control Order ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the maximum prices fixed under the Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1965, and Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1968, as the price at which the appellant has sold the excess paddy in the open market ?'2. In respect of the assessment years 1964-65, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, the assessee filed returns under...
Tag this Judgment!S. Aiyathura Pillai, by Son and Legal Representative A. Subramania Pil ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)162
Govindan Nair, C.J. - Two question have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in relation to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which read as follows :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ii) Whether there is any material for coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 31,961 is the income the applicant in the accounting year in question ?'The assessment year is 1962-63 and the relevant accounting period ended on 31-3-1962. The assessee was an individual. The income returned by him in the original assessment proceedings was not accepted by the Income Tax Officer. He found that the assessee had inflated the purchase price as seen from ledger folio 295 by Rs. 25,750/- and by Rs. 1,999.80 by virtue of ledger folio No. 333, totalling upto Rs. 27,749.88. A sum of Rs. 27,750/- was, the...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Law) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC227(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. These revision cases relate to the assessment of the same person for the three years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The commodity termed by the assessee-revision petitioner as 'twisted cotton fishing twine' was sold by the assessee for a sum of Rs. 49,693.81 for the year 1968-69 and for a sum of Rs. 41,279.84 for the year 1969-70. In the original assessment the turnovers represented by these amounts were taxed at the rate of 1 per cent, apparently because the commodity fell under item 4(ii) to the Second Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Later it was felt that it was the rate of 3 per cent that was applicable because the commodity in question was not cotton yarn, and fresh notice was issued to the assessee and the above-mentioned turnovers were taxed at 3 per cent. The same procedure was followed for the year 1970-71 relating to a turnover of Rs. 16,166.98, which related to the sale of the same commodity. Appeals taken before the Appellate Assi...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax (Law) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)105
Govindan Nair, C.J. - These revision cases relate to the assessment of the same person for the three years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The commodity termed by the assessee-revision petitioner as 'twisted cotton fishing twine' was sold by the assessee for a sum of Rs. 49,693.81 for the year 1968-69 and for a sum of Rs. 41,279.84 for the year 1969-70. In the original assessment the turnovers represented by these amounts were taxed at the rate of 1% apparently because the commodity fell under item 4(ii) to the second Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax, 1963. Later it was felt that it was the rate of 3% that was applicable because the commodity in question was not cotton yarn, and fresh notice was issued to the assessee and the above-mentioned turnovers were taxes at 3%. The same procedure was followed for the year 1970-71 relating to a turnover of Rs. 16,166.98 which related to the sale of the same commodity. Appeals taken before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against those ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kesavan and Company Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (As ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC221(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. These appeals raise a common question. The appellants are assessees to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short 'the Act'. They contended that 'caristrap rayon cord strapping' is rayon fabric exempted from tax under item 7 of the Third Schedule to the Act. The Third Schedule sets out various goods, the sales of which are exempted from tax under Section 9 of the Act. Item 7, as it stood at the relevant time, was in these terms:Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics as defined in items Nos. 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.Item 22 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is in these terms :'Item No. Description of goods. Rate of duty. 22 Rayon or artificial silk fabrics.--'Rayon or artificial silk Seven naye paise fabrics' include all varieties of fabrics manufactured either per square metre.' wholly or partly from rayon or art...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalakshmi Textiles Finishing Mills and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC302(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. These appeals arise from the same judgment in O.P. No. 2970 of 1970. The original petition challenged an order, exhibit P6, produced along with the O.P. by which the Sales Tax Officer, Cannanore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 47,433.66, which is the maximum penalty that could be imposed on the assessee under Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the Act). The violation for which this penalty has been imposed is said to be that of Section 10(b) and (d). To understand the case of the department that there has been violation of Section 10(b) and (d), it is necessary to refer to Section 8 of the Act. That section provides that every dealer, who, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to the Government any goods or sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under the Act, which shall be three per cent of his turnover. Sub-section (3) of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›