Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1(1998)ACC143
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These Original Petitions raise the question whether excavators and road-rollers are motor vehicles within the definition of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'). The further contention raised was that: (1) whether the Registering Authorities can insist on the payment of entry tax as a condition, precedent for registration of the vehicles, and (2) whether the Central Sales Tax paid can be deducted under Section 4(2) of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Entry Tax Act').2. The Entry Tax Act came into force on 5.7.1994. Under Section 3, tax is levied and collected by the name entry tax on the entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Tax has to be paid, at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the Government by notification. Constitutional validity of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1997Ker73
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Petitioner was elected as President of the Pathalam Thekkekara Grama Panchayat. The presidentship of the panchayat is exclusively reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Caste.2. A resolution was moved on 20-6-1996 by the third respondent expressing no-confidence on the petitioner. The motion of no-confidence was taken up for debate on 20-6-1996. In the meeting all the 9 members participated. After the debate when voting was taken up it was found that 5 members had voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and 4 members against the motion. This is clear from Ext. P.2. Ext. P2 states that the no-confidence motion was passed. According to the petitioner the statement in Ext. P2 the no-confidence was passed is not correct. Hence the present original petition has been filed challenging Ext. P2 and to declare that the no-confidence motion is not one carried out in accordance with Section 157(12) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and for other reliefs. The cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1998]230ITR782(Ker)
V. V. Kamat, J. 1. For the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 in regard to which proceedings under Section 147(b) were initiated bythe Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the following question expects our answer : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the question of exemption under Section 11 having achieved finality in the original assessment proceedings, the Tribunal is right in law and within its jurisdiction in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the question afresh in appeals arising from reassessment proceedings initiated to bring to tax entrance fee and subscriptions that have escaped assessment in the original assessment ?' 2. We have heard learned senior tax counsel as well as learned counsel for the assessee rather much more in extenso. This was because a situation of oscillation as regards the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the apex court in CIT (Addl) v. Surat A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(1997)ACC428
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner is an operator on the route Ernakulam-Kottayam. The third respondent applied 'for a temporary permit on the route Thalayolaparambu-Emakulam. The R.T.A. granted permit to him. True copy of the permit is Ext. P1. It shows that the permit is issued for one year under the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ext. P2 is the true copy of the temporary permit issued by the Secretary to the third respondent. Petitioner has challenged Exts. P1 and P2 on the ground that the RTO has no power to issue a permit for more than four months. According to the petitioner, a temporary permit can be issued only under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act. under Section 87 of the Act, a temporary permit can be issued only for four months, when the conditions mentioned there exist Section 87 appears in Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ext. P1 permit is issued under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act. Section 104 appears in Chapter VI of the Mot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas337(Ker)
G. Rajasekharan, J. 1. An appeal by special leave against the acquittal of the respondents of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act).2. The complaint was that for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000 the respondent executed a cheque to the complainant which was duly presented, but was dishonoured. A notice of dishonour, exhibit P-3, was issued in which there was a mistake in the number of the cheque. That was corrected and exhibit P-5 was subsequently issued. In response to exhibit P-3 payment was not made within the statutory period and so the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The learned magistrate considered the contentions and reached the conclusion that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused and the presumption under Section 139 of the Act has not been rebutted. It was further held that the cheque was dishonoured when presented, that the notice of dishonour was issued arid that in spite of that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1997]227ITR496(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. This petitioner has a grievance against rejection of the reference application by the order dated November 8, 1994, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (exhibit P-9). The petitioner wants a direction for reference as regards the following four questions :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the profit referable to the articles, products or things manufactured by it in the course of its construction (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to afford an opportunity to the assessee to produce the details called for by it for the first time at the hearing on December 7, 1993, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice which vitiates the appellate order ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1997]227ITR504(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This is an application by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the following questions :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the miscellaneous application of the Revenue on the footing that the grant of investment allowance to the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 suffered from an error apparent from the record ? 2. Whether the decision of the Tribunal on the issue of grant of investment allowance to the assessee governed by the judgment of the High Court in CIT v. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. : [1992]193ITR674(Ker) , the special leave petition against which was dismissed by a speaking order by the Supreme Court or by the later judgment of the Supreme Court in N. C. Budharaja's case in : [1993]204ITR412(SC) or by the observation of the Supreme Court touching the High Court's judgment in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1996]221ITR882(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The Revenue has brought this petition before us under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following five questions on the preparation of the necessary statement of case. The questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 35(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee- (i) expend or incur any expenditure on scientific research related to the business ? (ii) use the entire assets for research ? (iii) discharge the onus that lay on it for claiming the deduction under Section 35 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that : (i) the research that is being carried on by the assessee is related to the existing business of the assessee in pesticides and other est...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1997)143CTR(Ker)210
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The Revenue has brought this petition before us under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following five question on the preparation of the necessary statement of case. The question are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under s. 35(1) of the IT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee :(i) expend or incur any expenditure on scientific research related to the business ?(ii) use the entire assets for research ?(iii) discharge the onus that lay on it for claiming the deduction under s. 35 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and facts in holding that :(i) 'the research that is being carried on by the assessee is related to the existing business of the assessee in pesticides and other estate stores' and is not the above finding wrong, farfetched and wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1998]94CompCas906(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. The revision petitioner was the plaintiff-bank. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 32,38,041.20 arising out of several loans on the basis of overdraft agreements secured by hypothecation of stock-in-trade, vehicles and machinery, etc. The defendants were set ex parte and the suit was restored after one year and eight months of the institution of the suit. The defendants contended that on the oral assurance of sufficient working capital being made available to them by the previous manager and some of the employees, they had spent large amounts for canvassing orders, etc. The defendants claimed that they are entitled to claim from the bank as damages Rs. 57.47 lakhs out of which Rs. 25 lakhs is stated to be profits which were lost on account of their inability to conduct the business due to lack of funds. Therefore, in the written statement it was claimed that it may be set off against the amounts due to the bank and a decree may be passed in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!