Kerala Court December 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.
Rehmath Trading Co. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: [1990]78STC324(Ker)
V.S. Malimath, C.J.1. The appellant is a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, dealing with tapioca. He challenged the provisional assessment for July and August, 1977, in O.P. No. 4421 of 1977-I. The case of the appellant is that he is not the last purchaser and therefore not liable to tax. The authorities have taken the view that the appellant not having furnished the requisite information in the prescribed form No. 25 as required by Sub-rule (14) of Rule 32 of the Rules framed under the Act, he cannot claim that he is not the last purchaser and therefore not liable to sales tax in respect of the transactions in question. The stand taken by the appellant before the learned single Judge was that it is open to the appellant to prove that he is not the last purchaser by adducing other satisfactory evidence before the authorities even though he is required by Sub-rule (14) of Rule 32 to furnish the relevant information in regard to the transaction in question in...
Mammooty and ors. Vs. Food Inspector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Ker270
Bhat, J.1. These are petitions filed under Section 389 (alternatively under Section 482) of the Criminal P.C. (for short, 'the Code'), seeking release of the petitioners on bail to afford them time to 'present appeal' and obtain orders from the Supreme Court. The learned single Judge before whom the petitions came up for consideration noticed the conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court regarding power of this Court to grant bail viz. Abdulla Haji v. Food Inspector, Ker LT 754 : (1986 Cri LJ 1193) and Salim v. State of Kerala, 1985 Ker LT 711 : (1986 Cri LJ 1197) and referred the petitions for consideration by a Division Bench. Cri. M.P. 1145/85 came up before a Division Bench and the Bench referred the petition to a Full Bench and accordingly this Full Bench has been constituted. The other Cri. M.Ps. have also been placed before us.2. Cri. M.P. 1115/85 arises in Cri. R.P. 80/82. The other petitions arise in Cri. Appeals. In Cri. R.P. 80/82, this Court declined...
B. Esakimuthu Achari and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excis ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC85; 1986(6)LC729(Kerala); 1986(24)ELT265(Ker)
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 29 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulum are the petitioners. The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal- Procedure Code, for quashing an order passed by the Magistrate, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.2. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Trivandrum Division, first respondent in this petition, is the complainant in the above case. The complaint was filed under Section 85 read with Sections 8, 27 and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act. Both accused are goldsmiths. Inspection of their shop by the Superintendent of Central Excise was on 4-9-1981. As per Ext. P1 mahazar prepared by the Superintendent of Central Excise the accused were found in possession of 1114.150 grams of gold ornaments and primary gold in excess of what is shown in their register. It is in this background that they were prosecuted.3. The prosecution witnesses were examined and both the accused were...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Ker)126; [1987]165ITR174(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :R. A. No. 6/Coch/1979 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the moneys borrowed by the assessee are to be taken as capital employed for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 80J, the relief could be restricted proportionately for nine months ?' R. A. No. 7/Coch/ 1979 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plant and machinery used for extracting oil by the solvent extraction process from oil cakes qualify for development rebate at a higher rate ?'R. A. No. 8/Coch/1979 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim Section 80HH deduction at 20% of the current year's income of the industrial undertaking without setting off ag...
Guruvayar Devaswom Managing Committee Vs. Pritish Nandy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1985
Reported in: 1987CriLJ192
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. Guruvayur Temple has been for long, a place of attraction for those having religious devotion. In recent times, around it there has been a sporadic spate of litigation. The present petition hab connection with a cross section of such legal actions. A recent publication, made a charge about the politicisation of the religious institution. That is the provocation for the present contempt petiton. It is supported by a statutory sanction, though in relation to a portion of the accusation.2. The brief petition levelled accusation against the Editor and the Reporter of the Illustrated weekly, respectively respondents 1 and 2. Though six charges have been referred to in the Memo of Charges and paragraph 3 of the petition, only charges 1 and 3 are covered by the sanction- of the Advocate General.3. This Court ordered notice on the petition on 5-8-1985. The 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit on 13-9-1985. The case came up for hearing on 3-10-1985. It was partly h...
Prabhakaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1411
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. On the basis of the arguments advanced before me, the simple question for consideration is whether the prosecution is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal P.C.2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. 3/80 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alwaye. He was charge-sheeted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. The Magistrate convicted him under both the counts. For the offence under Section 39 he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. and for the offence under Section 44, the sentence awarded was fine of Rs. 250/-. He preferred Crl. Appeal 52/81 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur. The appeal was allowed in part. Conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act were set aside and he was acquitted on that count. Conviction and sentence under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act were maintained. The criminal revisi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›