Kerala Court November 1985 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. F.A.C.T. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC354(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The revenue is before us. The respondent is an assessee on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assessment), Ernakulam. The assessment years are 1970-71 to 1973-74.2. The assessee is the manufacturer of various chemical fertilisers. For the purpose of manufacturing chemical fertiliser, the assessee used to purchase naphtha from M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. These purchases are covered by declarations given by the assessee in form 18, made mention of in the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, for short the Act.3. The assessing authority accepted the above declarations in form 18, the respondent had given to the Burmah Shell and this resulted in the Burmah Shell being given the concessional rate of tax at 1 per cent as envisaged under Section 5(3) of the Act.4. It is the case of the revenue that subsequently it was found that the respondent had given form 18 declaration...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. H ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC369(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, Ag. C.J. 1. The Revenue is the revision-petitioner. The assessee is a dealer in hill produce at Robinson Road, Kozhikode. He was originally assessed by order dated 30th March, 1975, for the assessment year 1971-72. On receipt of information that the turnover of the assessee's business had escaped assessment, a reassessment notice was issued to him. It was stated in the notice that information had been received that large quantities of goods had been purchased in Calicut in the name of Kissan Spices Traders ('Kissan'), Mahe, whose telegraphic address was the same as that of the assessee in Calicut. These goods were sent from Calicut to various parties outside the State, all in the name of Kissan. Kissan had opened a bank account in the United Commercial Bank at Calicut (Account No. 542) originally with a sum of Rs. 501, but which subsequently accumulated to Rs. 3,58,412.45. The address of the Kissan given to the bank was the same as that of the assessee in Calicut. Kis...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1985
Reported in: [1990]79STC209(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, Ag. C.J.1. The assessee is a registered dealer. On the strength of C form it purchased goods in Tamil Nadu and brought them to Kerala and subsequently transported them to Bombay allegedly for the purpose of sale. Penalty has been imposed upon it under Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the reason that the goods brought to Kerala were not sold in Kerala, but they were sent to Bombay for the purpose of sale there. According to the Revenue, the assessee violated the terms on which C form was issued and accordingly it failed to make use of the goods for the stated purpose.2. Section 8 of the Act reads :'8. Rate of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.--(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce--(a) ...........(b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government, goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3) ;shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four per cent of his tu...
Subramaniam Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ466Ker
M.P. Menon, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against two separate communications issued by the Trivandrum Railway Divisional Manager on 5th November, 1985 informing the petitioners, two drivers of the Railways, that they would be 'deemed to have been removed from service with effect from 6th February, 1981.' On the facts and circumstances set out in the petitions, the action may seem to be somewhat outrageous, but the question still remains whether the petitions under Article 226 are themselves entertainable after the 1st of November, 1985 in view of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the establishment of a Central Administrative Tribunal, as per notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.2. Under Section 14(1) of the Act all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercised by all courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the constitution) immediately before the 'appointed day,' in relation to 'service matters' of Central government servants, are to be exe...
Kallara N. Sukumaran Vs. T.M. Jacob and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1696
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. By this original petition, the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court a publication in an evening daily 'Deergaveekshanam', commenting on the proceedings in O.P. No. 5538 of 1985, pending judgment, after a learned Judge of this Court had heard arguments, for taking action against the respondents under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.2. A Division Bench of this Court on 11-7-1985 issued notice to respondents 3 and 4, the Editor and the Publisher of the aforesaid daily. The Division Bench even at that stage found that there was no case against respondents 1 and 2 to initiate contempt action against them. A copy of the evening daily 'Deergaveekshanam' dt. 11-6-1985 wherein the publication appears is produced as Ext. P1. The publication is captioned as a news item that the case against the ministers is likely to be dismissed by the High Court. The news item relates to a writ of quo warranto against three ministers of the Kerala Congress Party, ...
Ranadevan Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1985
Reported in: 1987CriLJ13
ORDERS. Padmabhan, J.1. In C.C. No. 362 of 1980 the revision petitioner was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur for having committed offences punishable Under Sections 332, 448 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against him was that on 1-9-1980 at about 4.30 p.m. he voluntarily caused hurt to P.W. 1, a Police Constable, in the discharge of his official duties, with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties. The revision petitioner is alleged to have pelted stones at the police constable and trespassed into a tea shop where he committed mischief by breaking a photo that was hanging on the wall. After taking evidence the magistrate found him guilty on all the counts. For the offence Under Section 332 he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 448 of the I.P.C. the sentence awarded was rigorous imprisonment for two months. For offence Under Section 426 IPC he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one month. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Periyar Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Ker)48; [1987]164ITR174(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law arid fact in treating roads as buildings or part of the buildings and allowing depreciation for the same ?'The assessee contended before the Income-tax Officer that it was entitled to claim depreciation in terms of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the roads owned and used by it for the purposes of its business. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer stating that the roads were not buildings, but at best an improvement on land. This finding was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, He held that roads were not part of the land in the strict sense of the term and were, therefore, a depreciable asset. Affirming this finding, the Tribunal held that the roads in question were buildings. In doing so, the...
The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. Suresh Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker72
Sreedharan, J.1. Kerala State Electricity Board, the defendant in O.S. 34 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit by way of compensation on account of injuries sustained by the plaintiff.2, The material averments made b made by the plaintiff in the plaint are the following:-- Minor plaintiffs father Gopinathan Pillai owns a small plot of land near Neervilakam Lower Primary School. He was doing some agricultural operations in that plot oh 8-5-1978. The minor plaintiff with his twin sister brought coffee to their father. While returning from the said plot through the paddy field known as Karackaveli vayal at bout 5 p.m.the minor plaintiff happened to come into contact with a 11 K.V. line electric wire and sustained serious injuries. The stay wire which supported the electric post holding the 11 K. V...
Maniyam Krishnan and anr. Vs. Maniyam Nanukuttan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker75
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The first defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant. Plaintiff is the brother of the first defendant. The suit was for declaration of an easement of right of way. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit.2. I shall deal with the facts briefly. Plaint A schedule property belongs to the plaintiff The property on the western side of plaint A schedule property belongs to the defendants. Plaintiff is claiming an easement of right of way over the property of the defendants. The right of way is claimed by 'the plaintiff so as to reach the public road, viz. Medical College, Ulloor Road. The pathway claimed is admittedly in the property of the defendant It is a very short pathway insofar as the span of it takes only a very short distance in the defendants' property.3. Plaintiff alleges that to reach the mam road, he has no other alternative way. It is also...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Rayons Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Ker)51; [1987]164ITR134(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The questions arise out of the same order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for short, the Appellate Tribunal (annexure C). The facts are : Disposing of O.P. No. 4733 of 1977-L filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala-I, Ernakulam, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provision for gratuity made by the assessee is an allowable deduction while computing the total income for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'The question thus is at the instance of the Revenue.2. After considering an identical question, a Division Bench of this court has held that the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of an assessee for deduction of the amounts provided towards liability for gratuity, subject to verification of the exact quantum of l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »