Kerala Court April 1975 Judgments
Velutha Kunjamma Vs. Janaki Parvathi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker193
P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The decree-holder in O. S. No. 3.35 of 19SO of the Munsiff's Court. Chengannur sought recovery of possession of a half share in the plaint schedule property in the suit with mesne profits. The suit was filed by her, alleging that the plaint schedule property belonged to her father and on his death devolved upon her and her mother who was the 30th defendant in the suit. Defendants 1 to 9 who are the children of her father's brother were in possession of the property. The decree allowed her a half share in the property with a direction that she would be entitled to such mesne profits as would be decided in the final decree. In the final decree, mesne profits were fixed at Rs. 1,039.22, but no mention was made as to the persona liable. The decree-holder filed execution petition claiming mesne profits against all the defendants. Thereupon defendants 8 and 20 filed objection. They contended among other things that the plaintiff could be allowed to realise only proportio...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalan Vs. Angamali Chit Fund (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Ker120; (1975)IILLJ296Ker
P. Janaki Amma, J.1. In execution of a decree obtained against the appellant in this case the respondent Angamali Chit Fund Private Ltd., sought attachment of certain amounts due by way of bonus, to the appellants and the first judgment-debtor who are the employees of the Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Kalamassery. When the notice of interim attachment was received, the appellants and the first defendant in the case raised objections. After hearing the objections the interim attachment in respect of bonus due to the first judgment-debtor was made absolute and the attachment of the amounts due to the judgment-debtors 2 to 4 who are the appellants here was raised. The decree holder thereupon filed A. S. No. 115 of 1973, before the Additional District Judge, Parur. The appeal was allowed and the order raising the attachment was vacated as against judgment-debtors 2 to 4. The present Second Appeal is filed by judgment-debtors 2 to 4 against the above order.2. The contention raised in the ap...
Tag this Judgment!iyper Vs. L.i.C. of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ28Ker
T. Chandrasekaran Menon, J.1. The petitioner who is a Development Officer, Grade I, in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Quilon Branch, Quilon, seeks a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the Divisional Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Trivandrum-4, transferring him to the administrative side in the cadre of record clerk, and for a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as Grade I Development Officer and to give him all attendant benefits. The respondents in the OP. are (1) The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay-1, represented by its Chairman, (2) The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Trivandrum and (3) The Senior Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Quilon.2. The facts giving rise to this case are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Inspector under the Empire of India Life Assurance Company Ltd., which wa...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: [1978]114ITR822(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. In these two references made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred to this court for decision the following three questions of law arising out of the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal in two connected appeals relating to the assessment made against a company for the year 1966-67, one of the appeals having been filed by the assessee and the other by the department : '(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot avail of the benefit of the Circular No. 27 (LIX-2) of 1955 dated 6th July, 1955, issued by the Central Board of Revenue (annexure 'B') and the clarificatory Circular F. No. 10/49-65-IT(AI) dated October 14, 1965, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (annexure ' C') (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit derived by the sale of import entitlements cannot be considered as profits de...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC169(Ker)
V. Khalid, J.1. Although the amount of tax involved in this case is negligible, the questions of law raised are of frequent occurrence and importance.2. The questions of law raised for decision by this court are: (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption for the sale of medicines effected inter-State for the year 1967-68 ?(B) Is the interpretation placed by the Appellate Tribunal in G. O. Ms. No. 388/65/Kev. dated 22nd April, 1965, read along with Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, valid in law and(C) Is not the exemption granted by G. O. Ms. No. 388/65/Rev. dated 22nd April, 1965, subject to specified circumstances and/or under specific conditions and so 'not exempt from tax generally' within the meaning of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the explanation thereto ?3. The assessee is an Ayurvedic Physician. He runs his business ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Stores Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC286(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question that arises in this tax revision case turns on the interpretation to be placed on Section 39 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short, the Act. The relevant part of that section is in these terms :39. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.-(1) Any officer empowered by the Government in this behalf or any other person objecting to an order passsd by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Sub-section (3) of Section 34 and any person objecting to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 35, and any person objecting to an order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Clause (c) of Sub-section (4) of Section 28 may, within a period of sixty days from the date on which the order was served on him in the manner prescribed, appeal against such order to the Appellate Tribunal:Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if it is satisfie...
Tag this Judgment!Construction Company and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC320(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.T.R.C. Nos. 61, 65 and 66 of 19731. Messrs. Construction Company, Changanacherry, a firm of contractors, is the petitioner in these three tax revision cases. In assessing the' petitioner-firm to sales tax for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Sales Tax Officer, Changanacherry, brought to tax the turnover of the petitioner relating to the execution of a contract entered into by it with the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board) for the manufacture and supply of concrete poles of varying sizes. The assessee had raised the contention that the contract entered into by it with the Board was only one for work and labour and not for sale of specific chattels and that hence the turnover in question pertains to a works contract and was not taxable. The said plea was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before whom the matter was taken in appeal. The assessee thereupon filed three second appe...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Balak ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC487(Ker)
V. Khalid, J.1. The revenue is the petitioner. The revenue seeks to revise the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, exempting the turnover of Rs. 53,177 being the sale proceeds of empty gunnies by the assessee. The Tribunal rested its decision on the ground that the sales of empty gunnies were not in the course of the business and hence was not liable to be taxed.2. The assessee is a leading cashew trader. The year of assessment is 1968-69. The total sales turnover reported was Rs. 2,60,54,546.76, which included the sales turnover of Rs. 53,176.95, being the sale proceeds of empty gunnies. The assessee claimed exemption from tax for the sale proceeds of empty gunnies on the ground that it was not his main business. The assessing authority took the view that purchases and sales of gunnies were an integral part of the cashew business and included this turnover also for assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment. In second appeal the...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Law) Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC296(Ker)
V. Khalid, J. 1. The revenue seeks to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, in this revision case, on the ground that the Tribunal misguided itself in approaching the questions of law involved regarding the production of the C forms by the dealer who is the respondent herein.2. The questions of law raised read as follows :(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of C forms produced by the appellant (assessee), he is entitled to relief ?(B) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in giving relief to the appellant (assessee) in respect of C forms produced after the assessment order, in the absence of a plea and/or proof 'of sufficient cause' for not producing such forms before the assessment order and(C) Is not a finding regarding the existence of sufficient cause for non-production of C forms before the assessment, an essential prerequisite for granting the relief?3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax, Kerala V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)114
Khalid, J. - The Revenue seeks to revise the order of the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, in this revision case, on the ground that the Tribunal misguided itself in the approaching the questions of law involved regarding the production of the C Forms by the dealer who is the respondent herein.2. The questions of law raised read as follows :-'(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of C Forms produced by the Appellant (assessee), he is entitled to relief (B) Was the Appellant Tribunal justified in law in giving relief to the Appellant (assessee) in respect of C Forms produced after the assessment order, in the absence of a plea and/or proof or sufficient cause' for not producing such Forms before the Assessment Order (C) Is not a finding regarding the existence of sufficient cause for nonproduction of C Forms before the assessment, an essential prerequisite for granting the relief'.3. The r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »