Kerala Court March 1975 Judgments
The Sales Tax Officer and anr. Vs. Modern Plastic Industries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC23(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. We think the learned Judge was right in his view that there was nothing in Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, to warrant an interpretation that the goods sought to be included in the certificate of registration must have been intended for use in an existing business. The learned Government Pleader sought to make out that this requirement was necessary, by linking Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956--for short, the Act--with Rule 13 of the Registration and Turnover Rules, and form A prescribing for application for a certificate of registration under Section 7, to Section 8(1) and Section 8(3) of the Act. Section 7 imposes an obligation on every dealer liable to pay tax under the Act to apply within the prescribed time for registration under the Act. The time prescribed under Rule 4 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, is one month. On such registration, the benefit of a concessional ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mohammed Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: 1999(110)ELT451(Ker)
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. PI, P3 and P4. Ext. PI is a detention memo dated 3-7-1973 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventative & Intelligence Unit, I.D.O., Kozhikode, Ext. P3 is the mahazar prepared by the Inspector of Central Excise, IDO, Kozhikode, dated 12-12-1973 for the seizure of six bundles of tobacco weighing 335.800 Kgs. Ext. P4 is the copy of a Notice No. V/4/15/96/73, dated 5-6-1974 issued by the 3rd respondent Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Integrated Division, Kozhikode to the Petitioner asking him to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Rule 32(2), 40 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and why the six bundles of tobacco under seizure in respect of which the offence appears to have been committed should not be confiscated under Rule 32(2), 40 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Dr. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Company (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR655(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The two questions referred by the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for decision arise under the following circumstances. 2. The assessee-company exports shrimps and other seafoods to New York on consignment basis and had appointed M/s. Atlanta Trading Corporation, New York (hereinafter called 'Atlanta'), as their sole selling agents and exclusive consignees and distributors of their products in America. To expand their business the assessee-company required financial assistance from Atlanta, but the latter could not help. They enquired of their Swiss friends, M/s. Lada Trading Corporation, Geneva (hereinafter called 'Lada'), whether they could advance a loan to the assessee. The latter agreed to advance 1,10,000 U.S. Dollars charging intcrestat 9%. The assessee-company agreed to this, but later on Lada was not willing to advance the loan directly to the assessee-company and it insisted that it can lend the money only to Atlanta, So Atlanta proposed to the assess...
Tag this Judgment!R.K.V. Motors and Timbers (P) Ltd. Vs. M.V. Balachandra Kurup and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker7
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The petitioner in this Original Petition is a stage carriage operator and it was operating on the route Attingal-Palode for several years. When sanction for renewal was granted in April 1962, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation filed Orginal Petitions before this Court against the renewal of the permit to the petitioner in respect of K. L. T. 1725 and against some other operators in the Trivandrum district to whom also renewals were granted. For reasons stated in the Original petition, the petitioner could not renew the permit which expired on 20-8-1964, Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext. P-1 application dated 11-10-1985 before the 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum for re-issue of the permit condoning the delay caused in applying for renewal in time. The 2nd respondent con-sidered Ext. P-1 application at its meeting held on 11-10-1965 and took Ext. P-2 deci-sion stating that the petitioner did not make an application in time...
Tag this Judgment!Mathai Varkey and anr. Vs. Achuthan Damodaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker195
ORDERG. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This revision petition is filed by two debtors who are ad-judicated insolvents by the order of the Sub-Court, Kottayam, which was confirmed by the District Court on appeal. The petitioners are brothers and are admittedly indebted to the respondents. The petition for adjudication was brought by the 1st respondent and later the other respondents got themselves impleaded in the petition as counter-petitioners 3 to 3. The petition was grounded on Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Clause (d) of Section 6 of the Insolvency Act -- that with intent to defeat or delay their creditors the petitioners had departed from their dwelling houses or usual place of business or otherwise absented themselves and that they had secluded themselves so as to deprive their creditors of the means of communicating with them. The petitioners resisted the insolvency petition contending that it was not maintainable, that they are possessed of extensive properties and considerable assets mo...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Potti Madhavan Potti Vs. Kochehi Krishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker129
P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The appellant is the first defendant in a suit for partition. The plaintiff in the suit got a sale deed executed from defendants 13 to 22 in respect of their share in the properties of the Illom of which they are the members. The 13th defendant is a son of Sankaranarayanan Potti, a brother of the first defendant. The defendants 14 to 19 are the minor children of tine 13th defendant. The 20th defendant is a brother of the 13th defendant. The 21st defendant is the wife of the 13th defendant and 22nd defendant, a major daughter of the 13th defendant. In pursuance of the right conferred under Exhibit P-1, the assignment deed the plaintiff filed a suit for partition alleging that there was an oral partition prior to the assignment in his favour. The first defendant contested the claim and denied that there was any oral partition in the Illom. He, however, put forward a case that Sankaranarayanan Potti, his brother had released his rights in favour of the first defendant...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore Vs. C.T. George and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker169
Janaki Amma, J.1. The plaintiff, the State Bank of Travancore is the appellant. The first respondent had dealings with the Chaldean Syrian Bank, Trichur by way of overdraft current account On 6-1-1951. he executed Ext, A-1. a hypothecation bond for Rs. 8,750/- made up of the balance outstanding in his account and the expenses in connection with the deed. Ext. A-1 stipulated that the 1st respondent should pay interest at 9% per annum with quarterly rests. On the same day, the 1st respondent executed Ext. A-2, a possessory mortgage of the same properties for Rs. 1,000/- in favour of one F. C. George, an officer of the Bank The properties were taken by the 1st respondent on lease-back under Ext. A-3. The pattom was fixed under Ext. A-3 at Rs. 1,500/-. An amount of Rs. 1,410/- was to be retained by the 1st respondent, towards the upkeep and maintenance of the rubber trees and for payment of jenmi dues and interest to the Chaldean Syrian Bank. The balance Rs. 90/- was to be paid as purappad...
Tag this Judgment!Annamma Vs. Ouseph Tressiamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker185
Subramonian Poti, J.1. An interesting question has been raised in this Second Appeal and the case has been referred to a Full Bench in view of the importance of the question. Can a decree-holder-auction-purchaser institute a suit against the judgment-debtor for refund of the purchase money paid by him when, subsequent to the sale, he discovers that the judgment-debtor had, at the time of the Court sale, no saleable interest in the property That is the question for our consideration. The answer to this by the Courts below was in the affirmative and the plaintiff has therefore obtained a decree. That is challenged by the appellant here who is the sole defendant in the suit.2. The appellant before us is the first defendant in O.S. 83 of 1955 of the Sub-Court. Vaikom. That was a suit filed by one Ouseph Tressiamma against this appellant who was her sister, as the first defendant and one Isaac as the second defendant. That was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,500/- with interest said to be du...
Tag this Judgment!Mammon K. Cherian Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR553(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the inclusion of the income from property belonging to the wife in the hands of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 is valid in law ?2. The year of assessment was 1962-63. The short question with which we are concerned relates to the income of Rs. 4,457, derived by renting out the building which was constructed on a plot of land which belonged to the assessee's wife with funds furnished, according to the findings entered by the Tribunal, in its entirety, by the assessee, is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as income derived from an asset directly or indirectly transferred by the assessee to his spouse falling within Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That section is in these terms:--' 64. (1) In co...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Augustine and Co. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC257(Ker)
V. Khalid, J.1. The two questions which arise for decision in this T.R.C. are worded as follows :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is material on record to sustain the rinding that the detected suppression is of a continuous nature ?(2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the negative, should not the addition be limited to Rs. 24,644.07 ?2. The petitioner is a dealer in timber logs and sizes. For the year 1968-69, the petitioner returned a turnover of Rs. 3,51,035.45. The accounts were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and assessment was completed on an estimated total taxable turnover of Rs. 4,98,901.07. The petitioner did not question seriously the rejection of the accounts and did not plead before the officer for acceptance of his accounts. The only question that was agitated before the authorities and repeated before us is whether the estimate made by the assessing authorities is reasonable.3. From the materials available, it is seen that on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »