Skip to content

Kerala Court July 1977 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Jul 11 1977

The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jul-11-1977

Reported in: [1978]41STC358(Ker)

T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. This tax revision case relates to the year 1962-63 and it arises from a common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, for the said period as well as for 1958 to 1962. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's purchase turnover of cashew kernel during the period from 21st June, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, was, even in the absence of declarations in form No. 25, exempt from tax.2. In K.A. Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kerala, Trivandrum [1963] 14 S.T.C. 36, this court held that the purchases of kernel did not attract purchase tax. This decision was rendered on 21st June, 1962. In the light of this decision, the assessee rightly believed that the cashew kernels were not liable to tax at the purchase point. However, the position was altered retrospectively by the Kerala Sales Tax (Levy and Validation) Act, 1965, hereinafter called the A...


Jul 11 1977

The Deputy Commr. of Sales-tax (Law) Vs. K. A. Karim and Sons.

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jul-11-1977

Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Ker)304

Kochu Thommen, J. - This Tax Revision Case relates to the year 1962-63 and it arises from a common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, for the said period as well as for our consideration is whether the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessees purchase turnover of cashew kernal during the period from 21-6-1962 ton 31-3-1963 was, even in the absence of declarations in Form No. 25, exempt from tax.2. In K. A. Karim vs. Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kerala, Trivandrum, this Court held that the purchases of Kerala did not attract purchase tax. This decision was rendered on 21-6-1962. In the light of this decision, the assessee rightly believed that the cashew kernels were not liable to tax at the purchase point. However, the position was altered retrospectively by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Levy and Validation) Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act, S.3 of this Act provided :'3. Liability of dealers for tax on the purchase...


Jul 11 1977

Venugopalan Vs. Unnikutty Panicker and ors.

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jul-11-1977

Reported in: 1977CriLJ1862

Kumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The complainant, Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Kozhikode is the appellant.2. On 26-3-1971 the then Superintendent of Central Excise, Special Customs Preventive Circle, Calicut, examined as P.W. 3 in this case, searched House No. 6/364 of Mayanad Amsom, Karathur De som, alleged to be on receipt of information that smuggled goods were concealed In that house and on the reasonable belief that smuggled contraband goods were kept there. The building was owned and was in the occupation of respondents 1 and 2. P.W. 3 was accompanied by P.Ws. 1 and 5. Two independent witnesses examined as P.Ws. 2 and 4 were also present, As a result of search, 21 gunny bundles containing Nylon yarn which appeared to be made in Japan, the estimated value of which was Rs. 56,000/- were found in the house and they were seized, A mahazar was prepared which was attested by P.Ws. 2 and 4. Respondents 1 and 2 on being questioned by P.W. 3 in the presenc...


Jul 07 1977

Narayanan Vasu Vs. Ayyappan Sreedharan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jul-07-1977

Reported in: AIR1978Ker5

Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J. 1. This writ appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge who dismissed the writ petition filed to quash the order (Ext. PI) of the Land Tribunal, Vaikom, directing the shifting of the kudikidappu on deposit of the price of the homestead and the shift-in 2 charges, and on satisfying the other conditions provided for by the Act. An ingenious point was raised by way of defence to the application. As that is the only point now argued before us, we need not concern ourselves with the rest of the proceedings, or the contentions raised. The point was that the appellant-kudikidappukaran had put up a building on the property which he was occupying, that this was 'a work of a permanent character' within the meaning of Section 60 Clause (b) of the Indian Easements Act, and that therefore. the licence or the permission granted to the kudikidappukaran was not liable to be revoked. In consequence, it was contended that the proceedings which commenced by way of a suit to...


Jul 06 1977

Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trivandrum and ors. Vs. P.i. Ku ...

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jul-06-1977

Reported in: AIR1978Ker7

Gopalan Nambiyak, C.J. 1. The learned Judge against whose judgment this appeal has been preferred, allowed O.P. No. 1965 of 1973 quashed Exts. P2, P4 & P8 orders and directed a grant of the licence under the Gold Control Order to the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent in this appeal. We regret our inability to concur with the learned Judge either in his reasoning or the conclusion arrived at. The 1st respondent applied for a licence under the Gold Control Order for the year 1969. By Ext. P2 order, the Licensing Authority rejected the application on the ground that having regard to the number of licenced dealers in Pathanamthitta, their transactions and the demand for gold ornaments likely to arise from that area, it was not considered necessary to issue a licence as a gold dealer to the petitioner at Ranni, a place close to Pathanamthitta. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order saying that it saw no reason to interfere with the order of the Licensing Authority. There w...


Jul 06 1977

Tharur Panchayat and ors. Vs. Kunchayi and anr.

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jul-06-1977

Reported in: AIR1978Ker50

T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants in this second appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for an injunction to restrain the appellants and another from interfering with a water chal described as item 2 in the plaint and from trespassing into the northern portion of item 1 and for a mandatory injunction for restoration of the chal to its original condition.2. Plaint item 1 belongs to the plaintiffs and they are in actual possession of the same besides other properties. Defendants 1 to 3, who are the appellants, are the President, Executive Officer and a Member of the Tharur Panchayat respectively, within whose limits the property is situated. It appears that a peon of the Panchayat is also impleaded as the 4th defendant in the suit. The Panchayat had purchased the northern portion of item 1 for conducting a shandy. The plaintiffs have raised objection to the construction of a market place in that property as it would obstruct the flow ...


Jul 06 1977

M. Kamalam Vs. Dr. V.A. Syed Muhammed

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Jul-06-1977

Reported in: AIR1977Ker163

ORDERN.D.P. Namboodiripad, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Sections 80 - 84 read with Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the 'Act') challenging the election of the respondent to the Lok Sabha from the Kozhikode Lok Sabha Constituency in the election held on 19-3-1977, The main ground upon which the election is sought to be avoided is the commission of certain corrupt practices alleged in the petition. The petition was duly signed and verified by the petitioner and it was also accompanied by the requisite affidavit. On acceptance of summons the respondent entered appearance and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that there is non-compliance with Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act.2. The respondent was served with the copies of the petition, one of which was produced along with the written statement, The contention raised by the respondent is that both the copies served on him do not contai...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial