Kerala Court January 1978 Judgments
Burmah-shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC1(Ker)
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These tax revision cases raise a question whether 'special boiling point spirit' and 'shell hexane' are liable to be assessed at single point under Schedule I of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or on multi-point scheme of taxation under Section 5(1)(ii) of the said Act, read, in either case, with the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act. The revisions relate to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72. For the years 1968-69 to 1970-71, the assessments were completed accepting the position that the goods in question fell under Section 5(1)(ii) of the Act and were liable to be assessed under the multi-point scheme of taxation at 3 per cent sales tax. The assessment was reopened and the goods were assessed to single point tax under item 57B of Schedule I at the rate of 15 per cent sales tax on the ground that they constituted 'petrol' exempt from taxation by specific enumeration under item 57A of the said schedule itself. For the assessment year 1971-72...
Tag this Judgment!Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing, Co. of India Ltd. Vs. State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: (1978)6CTR(Ker)0098B
ORDERGopalan Nambiyar, C.J. - These Tax Revision Cases raise a question whether 'Special Boiling Point Spirit' and 'Shell Hexane' are liable to be assessed at single point under Schedule I of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or on multi-point scheme of taxation under Schedule II of the said Act read, in either case, with the provisions of S. 5(1) or 5(2) of the Act. The revisions relate to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72. For the years 1968-69 to 1970-71 the assessment were completed accepting the position that the goods in question fell under Schedule II of the Act and were liable to be assessed under the multi-point scheme of taxation at 3% sales-tax. The assessment was reopened and the good were assessed to single point tax under item 57B of Schedule I at the rate of 15% sales-tax on the ground that they constituted 'petrol' exempt from taxation by specific enumeration under item 57-A of the said Schedule itself. For the assessment year 1971-72, the original assessment itsel...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey Joseph Pothanikatt Vs. the Board of Revenue, Trivandrum and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker149
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. Theappeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge who dismissed the writ petition to quash Ext. P-7 order of the Board of Revenue. The writ petitioner was a purchaser in revenue sale of an extent of 44 cents of land which was attached on 24-3-1939. The property was under Government management from15-12-1940. The sale was on 12-7-1946 and was confirmed on 16-11-1946. On16-11-1948 there was a publication declaring the purchaser to be the owner of the property. The sale certificate wasissued on 29-3-1952 and registered on 23-5-1952. Symbolical delivery was effected on 23-12-1952 on the ground that respondents 3 to 8 in the writ petition were squatters on the property and therefore actual possession could not be given to him. On application being made to the Collector, he, by Ext. P-l proceedings dated 21-7-1064 directed to put the purchaser in possession. That again resulted in Ext. P-4 order granting only symbolical delivery. O. P. No. 467 of 1967 was moved i...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Haneefa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ46Ker
V. Khalid, J.1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of an appropriate writ to quash Exts. P1 and P2. Exhibit P1 is a demand made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund Act. Exhibit P2 shows the amounts defaulted and interest on them. The challenge is based on the mechanical manner of calculation of the damage without taking into account the circumstances under which the petitioner could not make the payment in time. 2. The upper limit of interest chargeable is 25 per cent on the arrears. Exhibit P2 shows, that except in two cases interest is calculated at 25 percent. It is now settled law, that in quantifying damages under Section 14B, the concerned authority has to pay due regard to the various circumstances under which the default was committed. The same petitioner had come before this Court earlier in O.P. No. 2789 of 1967. Isaac, J., while disposing of the said writ petition, observed that it was not possible to discern from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Khan Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker201
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. This appeal was referred by a Division Bench of this court to the Full Bench since two important questions arise for decision in this appeal and the Division Bench considered that it was desirable that the matter be examined and pronounced upon by a larger Bench.2. When the State Bank of Travancore, a subsidiary Bank within the meaning of Clause (k) of Section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 took out execution of the decree in O. Section No. 28 of 1963 in the Sub Court of Kottayam as decree-holder the judgment-debtor filed a petition under Section 8 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act 11 of 1970 seeking amendment of the decree in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The judgment-debtor claimed to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act relating to the scaling down of the debt. The subordinate Judge assumed that the petitioner was an agriculturist. He found that the decree-holder State Bank ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›