Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]71STC130(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The revision petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It is a company doing business in sea foods. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. Amongst others, the turnover relating to the sale proceeds of two motor boats and a motor jeep were brought to tax. The petitioner stated that they are not dealers in these items. The said plea was rejected. The appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax was dismissed. So also the second appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed by order dated 28th August, 1984. The assessee has come up in revision.2. The main question canvassed before us is that the sale proceeds of two motor boats for Rs. 1,50,000 and the sale proceeds of a motor jeep for Rs. 25,000 cannot be assessed to tax. It was contended that the assessee cannot be ^said to be a dealer in these items. He was not carrying on any business in these commodities. So the sale proceeds...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas497(Ker)
Shamsuddin, J. 1. This MFA is filed challenging the order of a learned single judge in Company Application No. 306 of 1986 in Company Petition No. 11 of 1983. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin, who is the appellant herein filed the above application under Rule 7 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for cancellation of the sale effected pursuant to a notice of sale dated October 15, 1985, published by the official liquidator, High Court of Kerala, in respect of 1.35 acres of land specified in the agreement executedbetween the Government and Brunton and Company (Engineers) Ltd. (now in liquidation) and to direct the official liquidator to confine the sale only to the structures standing on the land and to surrender vacant site to the Government after declaring that the lease is terminated. 3. The material averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the above application are as follows : A lease agreement was executed between the director of Brunton and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]67STC71(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee to sales tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1957-58. The respondent was a dealer in hill produce and timber at Calicut. The firm was assessed to sales tax, by order dated 30th January, 1960. According to the Revenue, the firm was constituted on 2nd December, 1967, as could be seen from the intimation sent to the Sales Tax Officer on 23rd February, 1978. There was an appeal from the order of assessment dated 30th January, 1960. It was dismissed on 12th December, 1973. There was a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as T. A. No. 213 of 1974. The Appellate Tribunal held that further investigation is necessary about the dissolution of the firm which was pleaded before it. The assessee made a plea before the Appellate Tribunal that the assessment made on 30th January, 1960, was on a dissolved firm and that as per the provisions of the 1125 Act, a dissolved firm cannot be assessed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]67STC170(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner herein is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The returns and the books of accounts were rejected. The assessing authority added 5 per cent to the taxable turnover. He also rejected the claim of exemption for the turnover of 'chilli powder' and 'coriander powder'. The assessing authority also imposed tax on the purchase value of the packing material. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the addition from 6 per cent to 1 per cent of the taxable turnover. In all other respects, the order of assessment was confirmed. In second appeal the Appellate Tribunal held that the turnover relating to packing materials should be deleted. But the Tribunal maintained that the turnover estimated on 'chilli powder' and 'coriander powder' is justified. The assessee has come up in revision.2. We heard counsel for the revision petitioner (assessee). It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)64CTR(Ker)324; [1987]168ITR26(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. As directed by this court in O.P. No. 1974 of 1978, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessment is not barred by limitation ?'2. The applicant is an assessee to income-tax. The assessment year in question is 1972-73. The status of the assessee is 'individual'. He filed a voluntary return on May 10, 1974. It was one under Section 139(4) of the Act. He filed a revised return on March 11, 1975. The assessment was completed on March 6, 1976 (annexure A). It is stated that the order was served on the assessee on August 28, 1976. The order of assessment dated March 6, 1976, determined the total income assessable at Rs. 83,960 and levied a tax of Rs. 55,772 inclusive of interest. In the appeal, the assessee/applicant contended that the assessment is barred by limitation in terms of Section 153(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]67STC183(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Revenue is the respondent. The matter relates to the assessment year 1977-78. In assessing the petitioner, the assessing authority added the value of the goods returned to the assessee by certain purchasers without taking delivery, by holding that they are sales attracting levy of sales tax, under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The said turnover amounts to Rs. 2,84,802.10. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that the sale was not complete in respect of those goods. He deleted the addition. The Revenue filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, as T. A. No. 838 of 1986. The Appellate Tribunal held that Rule 9(b)(ii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules is inapplicable. The Appellate Tribunal further negatived the plea of the assessee that the amount represented unfructified sale. In negativing the said plea, reference was also made to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas97(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. An order rejecting the application to implead an additional defendant is challenged by the first defendant in revision.2. The first defendant is a partnership firm and the other defendants are its partners. A suit was filed by the Andhra Bank for realisation of amounts advanced under various heads of loans. The contention was that the advance was guaranteed by the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) and, therefore, the Corporation is a necessary party. A separate application filed for that purpose was opposed both by the plaintiff as well as the ECGC.3. Admittedly, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is independent of the agreement (exhibit B-1) between the plaintiff and the ECGC to which the defendants are not parties. There seems to be some independent transaction between the defendants and the ECGC in which the plaintiff is not interested and is not a party. The contention of the defendants that the ECGC guaranteed the advances to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]183ITR417(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its decision :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method of valuation of old rubber trees adopted by the Tribunal for the purpose of computation of capital gains is legally correct ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that, when an estate with yielding rubber trees is sold, capital gains could not be assessed treating the trees as an asset apart and separate from the land ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The sole question that arises for consideration is the exigibility to capital gains on the sale of rubber trees. The assessment year is 1975-76. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) adverted to the decision in the case of the assessee for an earlier year covered by the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No. 5, of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]71STC256(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Revenue is the petitioner. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The respondent/assessee purchased old silver ornaments and silver wares, melted them and converted them into katcha silver and sold them as such. The assessing authority brought to tax the purchase turnover of old silver ornaments and silver wares to tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In appeal, the said assessment was affirmed. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the purchase tax under Section 6A of the Act is not exigible in the instant case. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Revenue has come up in revision.2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Nambiar, as also counsel for the respondent/assessee. It was argued that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the old ornaments purchased by the assessee do not attract tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. There is no substance in this plea....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker267
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Leave to sue as an indigent person is sought to be revised by the respondent on three grounds (1) The applicant (Respondent here) is not an indigent person (2) The allegations do not show a cause of action and (3) No notice was given to the Government Pleader and his report not obtained and considered.2. Art. 14 of the Constitution provides equality before law and equal protection of the laws. Directive principles of State Policy contained in Article 39A mandates the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and provides for free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. State is deriving revenue from Court-fee stamps and litigant has to pay the prescribed fee when filing the suit. There are many persons who are unable to have access to the legal institutions, due to inability by reason of their poverty to ...
Tag this Judgment!