Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1986Ker15
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the Pulaya caste in Kerala falls under Entry 54 in the list of Scheduled Castes in Kerala appended to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended by Central Act 108 of 1976.2. The petitioner is a member of the Pulaya Community belonging to the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin area of the Kerala State. He is presently working as Supervisor in the Posts and Telegraphs Department in the Cochin Foreign Post Office. He is also the Vice President of the Kerala Harijan Federation and the President of the All India Scheduled Castes/Tribes Federation of Post and Telegraph Employees, Kerala Circle.3. After the amendment of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 by Act 108 of 1976, the 4th respondent issued a circular letter requiring all officials belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, working in the Department to produce caste certificates. As per orders issued by the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1985]58STC322(Ker)
M.P. Menon, J.1. When a printer supplies letter heads, visiting cards, bill books, account books, balance sheets, ration cards and the like to a customer in pursuance of orders placed by him, is there a sale of finished goods or printed material to him Is their 'turnover' exigible to sales tax That is the common question in these revisions by the Revenue, against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The Tribunal has held, on the basis of the material on record and in the light of decided cases, including the decisions of this Court in P. T. Varghese v. State [1976] 37 STC 171 and John Mathew Bros. v. State [1978] 42 STC 140 that most of the transactions were in the nature of works contract. It has also indicated that marginal instances would require closer scrutiny with reference to the facts and circumstances of each transaction and that the test of marketability will be a useful guide in most of the situations. Mr. Karunakarn Nambiar for the Revenue however contends that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1985]58STC317(Ker)
K. Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. The question of law that falls for decision in all these tax revision cases relates to the tax applicable to the value of containers included in the sales turnover of coconut oil and oilcake sold inter-State. The reference to facts, for the purpose of discussion, would be to those relating to T. R. C. No. 46 of 1984.2. For the assessment year 1978-79 the assessing authority assessed the value of containers at 4% where the sale was covered by valid C forms, and at 10% where it was not supported by valid C forms. On appeal by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the value of the contents, that is, coconut oil and oilcake, sold inter-State, was taxed only at 1%, the value of the respective containers was also taxable at 1% only. The Revenue and the assessee appear to have agreed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that there had been a transfer of containers along with the contents. The only point in issue was, whether the value of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1985(6)ECC185; 1985LC603(Kerala)
K.P. Radhakishnan Menon, J.1. The petitioner, a registered firm, is carrying on business in processing and export of cashew kernels to foreign countries. The petitioner, in the course of its business, entered into a. 'sale contract' No. 3767, dated 11th April, 1983 with M/s. J.F. Braun and Sons, a company incorporated in New York, for the sale of 500 cartons (1000 tins) of cashew kernels, 320 grade, at 1.55 dollars per pound, c. & f. New York, This contract was entered into through M/s. Mitchel Beck & Co. incorporated in New York, the brokers. 2. Due to labour agitation and strike resulting in financial difficulties, the petitioner could not fulfil its contract aforementioned. By about October, 1983, the situation in the factory of the petitioner changed as the labourers withdrew their agitation. The petitioner, therefore, could start processing of kernels in his factory towards the end of December, 1983. Since it was not possible for the petitioner to process and get ready the 500 car...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1985]59STC316(Ker)
M.P. Menon, J. 1. The only question in these revisions is whether shade trees cut and sold as timber or firewood by owners of coffee and other plantations is exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.2. In Manager, Pulpally Devaswom v. State of Kerala [1977] 40 STC 350 this Court held that turnover in regard to such trees of spontaneous growth could not be taxed because :--(i) to bring 'occasional transactions' within the meaning of Section 2(vii), they should be transactions of a business nature ; and(ii) to bring them under Section 2(viii)(e), the sales should be of goods produced by the seller.The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has only followed the above view of this Court, and we are unable to hold that the orders under revision are erroneous.3. Counsel for the Revenue contends that the decision in Pulpally Devaswom [1977] 40 STC 350 is opposed to the view taken earlier by this Court in the Kottamullai Tea Co. case [1975] 36 STC 499 (App) (T. R. C. Nos. 64 and 65 of 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1985(6)ECC1
M.P. Menon, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition directed against the detention of one K.P. Abdul Majeed under Clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 2. The detention order came to be passed on 14th June, 1984 under the following circumstances. One Anjilath Ahamed reached the Trivandrum Airport on 6th February, 1984 by Air India flight from Dubai, and declared that he was carrying goods worth about Rs. 1,450. A search of his baggage by the customs authorities however revealed that he was carrying textiles and other goods in commercial quantities worth about Rs. 7,940, besides 15 gold biscuits worth Rs. 2.21 lakhs concealed in the cavities of his suit case. A cover addressed to 'Abdulla' and containing a piece of paper with eight names and certain code words was also found on his person. On interrogation, Ahmed stated that the goods were entrusted to him at Dubai by Basheer (brother of the detenu) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker144
1. The above unnumbered Writ Appeal is filed by the State of Kerala against the common order of Sivaraman Nair J. dt. 20-11-1984, passed in the above proceedings. A civil miscellaneous petition praying for stay of the operation of the order of the learned single Judge has also been filed by the State in the unnumbered writ appeal. The matter was moved as 'urgent motion' on 21-11-1984 afternoon by the Advocate General. The State of Kerala, appellant in the unnumbered Writ Appeal was the respondent in the Original Petitions. Petitioners in the Original Petitions are the respondents in the unnumbered Writ Appeal. The petitioners filed the Original Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance, 72 of 1984 and sought stay of enforcement of the provisions of the said enactment in the election to the Travancore Devaswam Board to be conducted on 28-11-1984. The petitioners are Hindu members of the Kerala Legislative As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(1985)ACC354; (1985)IILLJ70Ker
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. The 1st respondent, the widow of one Shri Burno, filed an application, W.C.C. No. 356 of 1978, before the respondent, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam, claiming compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act) from the appellant, on the allegation that her husband who was a headload worker, in the employment of the appellant due on 2nd May, 1974, due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. That the 1st respondent's husband was an employee under the appellant who was during the material time a Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agent at Cochin, and that he (the 1st respondent's husband) die on 2nd May, 1974 are facts admitted by the appellant. The only question that required decision by the 2nd respondent was whether the death of the 1st respondent's husband was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.2. The second respondent-Commissioner had initially passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1985)IILLJ88Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Can an employee of a Statutory Authority-or any employee for that matter-who invites the attention of the employer to adverse comments in the press about the employer be said to have committed a misconduct and placed under suspension? Is not such action of the employer violative of the employee's right to free speech? These interesting questions arise in this original petition.2. Petitioner is the Head Accountant in the Kerala Wakf Board. He was suspended from service by Ext. P 8 order in view of the misconduct involved in the submission of Ext. P 4 representation and in spite of Ext. P 7 submitted by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the submission of Ext. P 4 does not disclose any misconduct, nor does it justify any disciplinary action against him, in aid of which alone, he can be kept under suspension. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P 8 order.3. Exts. P1 to P3 are three newspaper reports, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker179
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. The petitioner who claims to be running a rice mill in Ward V of Paipra Panchayat seeks to quash an order Ex. P-2 passed by the District Collector, the 1st respondent herein in favour of the 4th respondent herein. The third respondent was running a mill in Ward No. 1 of the same Panchayat. He sold the mill to one Aliyaru, who in turn sold the same to the 4th respondent sometime in 1974. Before the sale, the 3rd respondent had shifted the mill in question from Ward No, I to Ward V, according to the petitioner, in violation of the provisions of the Rice Milling In-dustry (Regulation) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. The licence issued in favour of the 3rd respondent was therefore cancelled and this order of cancellation was challenged by him before this Court in O. P. No. 99/75 in which the petitioner herein got himself impleaded as an additional respondent. That original petition was dismissed with a direction that the...
Tag this Judgment!