Kerala Court February 1994 Judgments
E.K. Jose Vs. Additional Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1994
Reported in: [1996]217ITR89(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This is a writ appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge in Original Petition No. 7924 of 1989 filed by the writ petitioner, who is an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act'). The substantial relief that subsists for consideration in the writ petition is to quash exhibit P-7 order passed by the third respondent, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, under Section 34 of the Act.2. This is not a case where the third respondent has entirely rejected the claims of the appellant in revision. The third respondent has in fact directed certain modifications in the matter of estimating yield and expenses for the year 1987-88. Exhibit P-3 assessment order and exhibit P-5 appellate order challenged in the writ petition have necessarily merged in exhibit P-7 order of the third respondent. Thus, we have before us exhibit P-7 order of the Board of Revenue directing the...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Rubber and Reclaims Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC353(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This original petition which challenges the orders of assessment, exhibits P1 and P2, appears to have been admitted because of the challenge contained therein to Explanation 3B to Sub-section (xxi) of Section 2 and Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. I do not find any substance in this challenge, for the reason that Explanation 3B only bodily incorporates the provisions of Clause (d) of Article 466(29A) of the Constitution without any change in it. If that section is valid, there is no scope for any challenge to the other provision mentioned by the petitioner. Faced with this situation counsel for the petitioner stated that what was under challenge was the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act. But that challenge is no longer open having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370 decided as early as on March 31, 1989. Despite this decis...
Tag this Judgment!Gandhi Sons Vs. Assistant Commissioner and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC205(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. While completing the assessment, exhibit P1, under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act', for easy reference), for the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioner was found entitled to get refund of an amount of Rs. 1,0.4,423.91 as the excess amount of sales tax paid by it during the year. At the same time, the petitioner was held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 8,799.11 by way of surcharge. Petitioner got further relief in the appeal it filed against the order exhibit P1 which was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner by his order exhibit P2 dated June 6, 1989. According to the petitioner, if the order exhibit P2 is implemented, the amount of refund due will exceed Rs. 1,14,000, The Revenue has filed appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order exhibit P2 with a delay of 870 days. That is pending consideration.2. The assessment for the next year 1977-78 was completed by the proceedings exhibit P3 by which the petitioner was c...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Anto Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Chalakkudy Municipality, Trichur ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker390
K.J. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner owns four cents land within the Chalakudy Municipality in Sy. No. 528 of Mukundapuram Taluk. He wanted to construct a building in the said property for which he submitted an application on 27-8-1987 to the Commissioner of the Municipality -- the first respondent in this petition. The said application was rejected on the ground that the place over which the construction is proposed to be carried on is an area covered in detailed Town Planning Scheme for Chalakudy market area. The said area is reserved for constructing a road and expansion of the Bellmouth. The said application was rejected by the Commissioner as per Ext. P2 order dated 10-9-1989. In the said communication also, the Commissioner had said that the property over which the building is proposed to be constructed is included in the D.T.P. Scheme for development of Chalakudy market and the area is included among the lands sought to be acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. Thayyil Plantation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR1035(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This writ appeal arises from the judgment of the learned single judge in O. P. No. 5386 of 1989. The appellants are the agricultural income-tax authorities, who are the respondents in the original petition. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner who is an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act (for short, 'the Act').2. The main question that came up for consideration before the learned single judge is whether the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Act to rectify mistakes take in their sweep the authority to change the status 'registered firm' to that of 'unregistered firm'. The learned single judge after interpreting the provisions came to the following conclusion : 'The Agricultural Income-tax Officer exercising the authority to rectify mistakes under Section 36 of the Act has no jurisdiction to alter the status of the assessee from 'registered firm' to that of 'unregistered firm'. The above conclusion is challenged in the present writ appeal.3...
Tag this Judgment!B. Radhamani Amma Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Agricultura ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC347(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. I do not find any merit in this original petition. The assessee is a person who has consistently filed false returns for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. For these two years she had filed returns on April 30, 1983 and April 30, 1984. In the first of these returns she had suppressed purchase turnover of copra to the tune of Rs. 9,93,942 and for the second year the amount not disclosed in the returns was Rs. 9,67,434.06. These amounts were admittedly due for payment of tax, but in view of the suppression of these amounts in the returns, the petitioner delayed payment of the tax admittedly due on this turnover, namely, Rs. 9,348,48 for the first year and Rs. 8,894 for the second year. The petitioner filed revised return for 1982-83 on September 5, 1986, almost 3 1/2 years after the original return was filed on April 30, 1983. For the second year she filed return only after the verification ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathai @ Baby Vs. Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC399
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Claimant in O.P. No. (M.A.C.) 607 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant. He was injured on account of an accident involving a chassis driven by the first respondent. Consequently, he was treated in the Medical College Hospital for about nine days. Since he was not completely cured, he got himself admitted a second time and was in hospital for about twenty days. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/ from respondents 1 to 3 who are the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle respectively. Learned Tribunal, by award dated 20.9.1984, dismissed the claim finding that claimant filed to prove negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver. Aggrieved by the said decision, he has come up in appeal.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether first respondent was rash and negligent in driving the chassis at about 4.30 p.m. on 31.7.1980, which caused injuries on the appellant....
Tag this Judgment!Achoor Estate Vs. Nabeesa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC491; 1994ACJ607; (1994)IILLJ969Ker
John Mathew, J.1. These are appeals filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short 'the Act', against orders of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kannur, in different cases. When we noticed that a large number of appeals were being filed against the orders of this Commissioner, we directed the office to post them together. On a perusal of the records we prima facie found that in most of these appeals learned Commissioner has erred in fixing and awarding compensation. Accordingly we passed the following order on M.F.A.No. 649 of 1993 on July 13; 1993:'Notice. Give notice to A.G. also. Issue notice to Shri.G. Sasidhanin Nair, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner) Kannur, informing him that he may appear, if he thinks it necessary, at the final hearing of this case and the following similar cases, since prima facie we are of the view that in these cases some strictures against the officer are...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Baby Mathew Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR967(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer J.1. The petitioner is a doctor by profession. He is now faced with proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act ('R. R. Act', for brevity) for realisation of certain amounts due by way of tax under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, from the third respondent, which is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, to which I shall hereinafter refer as 'the society'. The tax is due for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 corresponding to the accounting years 1978-79 to 1981-82. The petitioner was the president of the society for a term of three years 1979-80 to 1981-82. The tax is sought to be recovered from him because of this connection.The society was assessed to tax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 by the proceedings, exhibit P-3, dated March 12, 1985. The amount of tax demanded pursuant thereto was not paid. Though the assessment was made in the name of the soci...
Tag this Judgment!Khataisons Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC197(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Petitioner is a dealer in woollen carpets, registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act). Woollen fabrics as defined in item 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were exempt from payment of tax under Section 9 read with item 7 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act, Petitioner's turnover of woollen carpets was thus exempted from payment of tax up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1982-83. But tax was levied at 4 per cent on the said turnover for the year 1983-84 as if woollen carpets were multi-point goods taxable under Section 5(1)(ii), and not exempted under Section 9 read with item 7 mentioned earlier. A new item 100B was added to the First Schedule to the Act with effect from April 1, 1984, bringing 'pile carpets' to tax at 15 per cent single point, at the point of first sale in the State, with the result, the petitioner was assessed to tax at 15 per cent in the year 1984-85 on their sale of carp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »