Kerala Court July 1987 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 (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. M ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC171(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The matter relates to the assessment year 1974-75. In fixing the taxable turnover, the assessing authority included a turnover of Rs. 6,000 being the sale value of an old oil engine sold by the assessee. The objection raised by the assessee for not including the same in the taxable turnover was rejected. In appeal, this was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal adverted to the definition of the word 'business' occurring in the Act before the amendment by Act 22 of 1974 and held that the sale in the instant case is of an old discarded machinery, which is a capital asset, and so the turnover coming under this head cannot be included in the sale turnover of the assessee. The Revenue has come up in revision.2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Nambiar. It is evident from para 3 of the order of the Tribun...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Duplicator Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC238(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The 'Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. The controversy is regarding the rate at which the duplicating paper and stencil paper are taxable. The Revenue brought these two items to tax as coming within item No. 21 of the First Schedule, before its amendment by Act 19 of 1980. The goods were taxed at 15 per cent at the point of first sale in the State by the respondent-dealer. In appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the goods are not taxable under the First Schedule, item No. 21. It was held that both stencil paper and duplicating paper cannot be taxed as accessories to duplicating machines. However, duplicating paper is paper and after amendment it will come under item No. 97 of the First Schedule and taxable at 8 per cent. Till 15th September, 1980 (date of amendment) duplicating paper was 'paper' and was liable to tax at the general rate at ...
T.H. Mustaffa Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ816
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The District Magistrate, Ernakulam, (District Collector, Ernakulam) by his proceedings Ext. P4 dated June 28, 1987 revoked an order issued under Section 27 of the Kerala Police Act 1960 (Act 5 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and ordered release of possession of the building and premises bearing door No. 36/183, of the Cochin Corporation, situate in Hospital Road, Ernakulam, to the 3rd respondent, Sri. T.P. Peethambaran, described as the President, District Congress Committee (S). The Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam was directed to implement this order. The building in question is described in the order as the 'District Congress Committee Office, Ernakulam'. The petitioner, and M.LA. and the Vice President of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (I), 'the Kerala State Unit of the. Indian National Congress,' has filed this original petition, challenging the order Ext. 24.2. The dispute, that has led to this original petition has its origi...
Central Government Vs. Abdul Mohammed and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC96
K. John Mathew, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The Union of India represented by the Director of Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, is the appellant. The Director of Enforcement, FERA, took proceedings against the respondent herein, namely, Abdul Mohamed, hereinafter referred to as the respondent under Section 4(1) of the FERA, 1947. On 18-8-1971 a car driven by the respondent was intercepted by officers of the Customs Preventive Unit, Kasaragod at Adakathvayal near Kasaragod and seized foreign exchange, namely drafts, traveller's cheques and currencies in U.S. $ and pound sterling of the value of U.S. $1,040.0 and 4,000.3 along with some letters and foreign goods. These documents and currencies were taken into custody and a list was prepared. The respondent was taken into custody by the Customs Officers and was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanhangad. Subsequently he was handed over t...
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ker23
John Mathew, J. 1. The 1strespondent in Motor Accidents Claim No. 224 of 1981 before the M.A.C.T., Manjeri, namely the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, is the appellant. The respondent is the petitioner in the said claim. She is the Proprietress of Ramanadkara Transport and the owner of bus No. K.L.M. 765. Bus No. K.R.T. 6024 owned by the appellant and driven by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal dashed against the respondent's bus in front of Munniyoor Panchayat Office. The respondent's bus was extensively damaged. A claim was filed before the Tribunal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1937 as amended by Act 56 of 1969 for compensation under the following heads :Loss of collection from 22-2-1979 to 10-4-1979 Rs. 38,400Amount of spare parts and repair charges................Rs. 25,918TotalRs. 64.318Under Col. 28 of the claim petition, among other things, it was stated as follows :'The applicant's bus had to be garaged for repairs till 10-4-1979. The bus was put o...
A and E Inspector, Asstt. Registrar's Office, Udumbanchola and Ors. Vs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker115
Malimath, C.J. 1. This appeal is by the original respondents 1, 2 and 4, against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 76 of 1984 (reported in 1986 Ker LT 274). Respondent 1 is a member of Respondent 2 society, registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) Respondent 1 had obtained a loan from the society by mortgaging his immovable properties. On the ground that the loan was not discharged, the Society raised a disputeand referred the same before the 2nd appellant, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nedumkandam. The Assistant Registrar to whom the dispute was referred, transferred it for disposal to the 3rd appellant, the Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Udumbanchola Unit A, under Section 70(1)(c) of the Act, which empowers the Registrar to refer the dispute for disposal to an Arbitrator appointed by the Registrar. The Arbitrator after due notice to the parties made an award on 16-3-1982. Responden...
Fashion Saree House Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR285(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The same assessee is the petitioner in both these original petitions. The Revenue is the respondent in both these cases. We are concerned with the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. Identical questions arise for consideration in both the cases. The petitioner (assessee) is a firm. The assessments made for these two years initially*' were reopened under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that interest on the amounts diverted to sister concerns, which ought to have been disallowed, was wrongly allowed in the original assessment orders. The reopening of the assessments was challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He held that the reopening of the assessments was without jurisdiction and nullified the reassessment proceedings. The Revenue filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended that the Income-tax Officer came into possession of vital particulars subsequent to the date of completion of the original assessmen...
P.N. Sasikumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Ker)78; [1988]170ITR80(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. These four income-tax reference cases give rise to common questions of law. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the decision of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings by notice dated September 2, 1977, were validly initiated ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had material to come to the conclusion that the notice issued to the individual was only a mistake curable and not one which affects the jurisdiction although the assessment was made in the status of an 'association of persons' ?' 2. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter relates to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78. For these four years, no return of income was furnished in respect of 'Archana Hotel', Kottayam. On September 2, 1977, the Income-tax Officer issued notices under Section...
State of Kerala Vs. Cardamom Planters' Association
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC294(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the revision petitioner. The respondent is an association of cardamom growers. They conduct auction sale of cardamom produced by the members of the association. The question involved in these cases is whether the association is liable under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957.2. According to the respondents they were auctioning cardamom in a representative capacity and the liability to pay surcharge on the turnover of cardamom referable to the auction sales, ought to depend on, whether or not, surcharge would become leviable, had the assessment been, made on each grower on his turnover of the goods; In other words, according to the respondents, the total sales turnover of cardamom should not be the criteria for imposition of surcharge. The Tribunal held that the respondent was only an agent, that the members whose crop was auctioned by the respondent were the principals, that the agent could be assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on...
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Saradamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC255
John Mathew, J.1. The 1st respondent in Motor Accidents Claim No, 224 of 1981 before the M.A.C.T., Manjeri, namely, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, is the appellant. The respondent is the petitioner in the said claim. She is the proprietress of Ramanadkara Transport and the owner of bus No KLM 765. Bus No. KRT 6024 owned by the appellant and driven by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, dashed against the respondent's bus in front of Munniyoor Panchayat office. The respondent's bus was extensively damaged. A claim was filed before the Tribunal Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by Act 56 of 1969 for compensation under the following heads:Loss of collection from 22-2-1979 to10-4-1979 .... Rs. 38,400Amount of spare parts and repair .... Rs. 25,918charges.Total: Rs. 64,318Under column 28 of the claim petition, among other things, it was stated as follows:The applicant's bus had to be garaged for repairs till 10-4-1979. The bus was put on road o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »