Kerala Court February 1978 Judgments
Palghat Taluk Rice Producing and Marketing Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: (1978)6CTR(Ker)0134B
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. - We see no ground to interfere in revision in these cases. The tax revisions are by the same Assessee in respect of different assessment years. The question raised is the assessability to sales-tax of the turnover in respect of gunny bags in which paddy was sold to the Assessee and in respect of the bran generated in the process of milling the paddy delivered by the Assessee to the millers. Liability was sought to be linked up with the legal position as to whether the Assessee can be regarded as agent of the Food Corporation of India in the light of the principle of the Supreme court decision in K.S.G.P. Society Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat,. The Tribunal rightly noticed that it was unnecessary to go into this aspect and that the decision could be rested on the terms of the contract. It referred to the agreement executed between the assessee and the Food Corporation of India, and, in particular, to Schedule VI thereof. It pointed out as per the entries in that Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Philip Vs. Varkey Mathai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker208
Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal arises from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, dated 15th March 1973 rejecting the appellant's application for setting aside an award dated 19-11-1969 on the around that the application was barred by limitation.2. The appellant is the 1st respondent in Arb. O. P. No. 6 of 1970 on the file of the lower court. He and the present 3rd respondent (2nd respondent in the O.P.) were parties to the award. Present respondents 1 and 2 (the petitioners in the O.P.) were the arbitrators.3. The arbitrators filed the award on 13-3-1970 in terms of Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'Act'). Notice of the filing of the award was issued by the court on 8-4-1970 and it was served on the 1st respondent (appellant here) on 18-4-1970. He engaged counsel on 4-6-1970 to represent him in the proceedings before the lower court. His objection to the award with a prayer to set aside the same was filed on 22-7-1970. The sequence of events shows that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. H.H. Sethu Parvathi Bayi and H.H. Leksh ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR135(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These two references are by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The question of law referred for our opinion in I.T.R. No. 28 of 1976 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the interpretation of Section 5(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 70,000 invested by her in National Defence Certificates and in Defence Deposit Certificates in addition to the overall exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 granted to her by the WTO under Section 5(1) of the Act ?' and in I.T.R. No. 37 of 1976, the question of law referred is: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the interpretation of Section 5(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 70,000 invested by her in National Defence Certificates and in Defence Deposit Certificates in addition...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rosy Joseph and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India, Ernakulam Branch
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker209
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. Thiscivil revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Kochu Thorn-men J. as it was felt by the learned Judge that the dicision in Narayan Pillai v. Gopala Pillai (1973 KLT 413) : (AIR 1974 Ker 27) requires reconsideration.2. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in 0. S. No. 222 of 1975 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam. That is a suit filed by the 1st respondent-Union Bank of India for recovery of a sum of Rupees 28,153.75 with interest by sale of the plaint A schedule immovable properties on the basis of a transaction of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. In the written statement filed by the defendants they contended inter alia that the properties covered by the mortgage sought to be enforced in the suit being situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cochin, thesuit ought to have been filed only in that court under Section 16 of the Civil P. C. and that the S...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: [1978]41STC474(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The question raised in this tax revision case is whether a dissolved firm can be subjected to assessment under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The Tribunal held that it could not be so assessed; and against the order of the Tribunal, the State has preferred this revision.2. The assessment year here with which we are concerned is 1962-63. The firm, which was the assessee, was dissolved on 1st April, 1965 and the assessment was completed subsequent to the dissolution, i.e., on 17th October, 1968. As the proceedings related to the assessment year 1962-63 and as the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, came into force only on 1st April, 1963, it is common ground that the question has to be decided with respect to the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. We may even here observe that in the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, a provision was added in 1969, by the amending Act 15 of 1969, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1963, to provide...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Vs. V. S. Chamunni.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: (1978)6CTR(Ker)0194B
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. - The question raised in this tax-revision case is whether a dissolved firm can be subjected to assessment under the provisions of the General Sales-tax Act, 1125. The Tribunal held that it could not be so assessed; and against the order of the Tribunal, the State has preferred this revision.2. The assessment year here with which we are concerned is 1962-63. The firm which was the Assessee, was dissolved on 1-4-1965 and the assessment was completed subsequent to the dissolution i.e. 1-4-1965 and the assessment was completed subsequent to the dissolution i.e., 17-10-1966. As the proceedings related to the assessment year 1962-63 and as the Kerala General Sales-tax Act 1963 came into force only on 1-4-1963 it is common ground that the question has to be decided with respect to the provisions of the General Sales-tax Act, 1125. We may even here observe that in the General Sales-tax Act, 1963, a provision was added in 1969 by the Amending Act 15 of 1969 with respective...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kelukutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC108(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J.1. These two tax revision cases raise the question as to whether the same set of partners constituting two different firms or partnerships can, in the eye of law, be regarded as one person, or should be treated as two separate assessable units or entities for the purposes of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that the turnover from sales by one of the partnerships had not been brought into account by the other partnership constituted by the same partners as the first. The Tribunal took the view that in law the same partners constituting two different partnerships must be regarded as two separate persons or assessable units in the eye of law and, therefore, separate legal existence of the two partnerships was possible and permissible. But for the purpose of determining whether there had been what is generally referred to as interlacing and interlocking, the Tribunal remanded the proceedings back to the Sales Tax Officer. The...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. G ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: [1978]41STC440(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. This tax revision case is preferred by the State against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. The assessee is a dealer in jewellery and G.I. pipes at Ernakulam. The question that calls for determination is the appropriate mode and rate of assessment to sales tax. As far as the turnover from jewellery is concerned, the Tribunal took the view that it is liable to be assessed under entry 56 of Schedule I of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as 'bullion and specie' at 1 per cent. The State would contend that this is not assessable at this smaller rate under this specific entry, but should be assessed to multi-point tax under Section 5 of the Act. Similarly, in regard to G. I. pipes, the Tribunal took the view that they were not liable to be assessed under entry 26A of Schedule I of the General Sales Tax Act as 'water supply and sanitary fittings' at 7 per cent as the State would contend, but were liable to be assessed only at the lesser...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. G. S. Pai and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: (1978)6CTR(Ker)119
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. - This tax-revision case is preferred by the State against the decision of the Sales-tax appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. The assessee is a dealer in jewellery and G.I. Pipes at Ernakulam. The question that calls for determination is the appropriate mode and rate of assessment to sales-tax. As far as the turnover from jewellery is concerned, the Tribunal took the view that it is liable to be assessed under Entry 56 of Schedule I of the General Sales Tax Act 1963 as 'bullion and specie' at 1%. The State would contend that this is not assessable at this smaller rate under this specific entry, but should be assessed to multi-point tax under S. 5 of the Act. Similarly in regard to G.I. Pipes, the Tribunal took the view that they were not liable to be assessed under Entry 26A of Schedule I of the General Sales-tax Act, as 'water supply and sanitary fittings' at 7% as the State would contend, but were liable to be assessed only at the lesser rate under the General schem...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR254(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 271(1)(c) passed on March 31, 1973, was barred by limitation?' 2. The question arises with respect to the assessment year 1966-67. The return was filed on December 1, 1966, and the assessment was 'completed by order dated the 20th March, 1971. Penalty was imposed by order dated March 31, 1973. Section 275 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which provided the time-limit within which proceedings for imposition of penalty had to be completed was amended 'by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (42 of 1970) with effect from April 1, 1971. The section, after its amendment, permitted penalty proceedings to be completed within two years of the completion of the assessment order. It is beyond dispute that, but for this amendment, u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »