Kerala Court July 2000 Judgments
S. Unnikrishnan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC530(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Assessee is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiru-vananthapuram dated September 15, 1999 in T.A. No. 28 of 1994. Revision-petitioner is a dealer in jewellery. For the assessment year 1991-92, he filed a return for a total turnover of Rs. 18,88,058 and the taxable turnover was Rs. 18,74,739. On the ground of alleged stock variation consequent on two inspections on August 9, 1991 and January 4, 1992, the turnover was estimated and enhanced to Rs. 58,57,130 by the assessment order dated November 30, 1992.2. The revision petitioner filed appeal against the best judgment assessment on various grounds including the illegality of the excessive nature of the estimate. While the appeal was pending, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kollam, invoked suo motu power, under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 stating that the estimation of turnover in the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Tvm Port and Headload Workers Co-operative Society Vs. Dhaneshkumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC422; 2001ACJ760; (2001)ILLJ62Ker
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. The following two questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: '1. Whether the substitute (Badli Worker) engaged and paid directly by a permanent labourer is a 'workman' as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Whether the opposite parties, namely the principal employer and the contractor, are liable to pay compensation to a substitute (Badli worker) engaged by the permanent labourer, for the injuries sustained by the substitute.' 2. The brief facts leading to the case are: October 25, 1989 was a tragic day to the then 23-year old first respondent herein. While he was doing the work of loading foodgrains on behalf of the appellant at the premises of the; F.C.I, godown at Kazhakkuttom, a pile of stacked sacks toppled and fell on his back. As can be seen from Ext. A4 medical certificate, having sustained fracture of spine and other serious injuries, 'he is suffering from paraplegia with pressure sore and urinary tract infection. He has got ...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Chandy Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC563(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.The assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessment year concerned is 1984-85. The assessee is a dealer in hardware items. In the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee claimed exemption from sales tax on the sales turnover of pickaxe, shovel, crow-bar, etc., as agricultural implements exempted from tax under S.R.O. No. 342 of 1963. The said claim was rejected by the assessing authority. The same was confirmed by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal.2. The question, therefore, is as to whether pickaxe, shovel and crowbar dealt with by the assessee are agricultural implements worked by hand liable to be exempted under Notification S.R.O. No. 342 of 1963. In order to answer the said question, it is necessary to refer to the notification S.R.O. No. 342 of 1963. S.R.O. No. 342 of 1963 as it stood during the assessment year 1984-85, item 8 thereof exempted 'agricultural implements worked by hand'. T...
Tag this Judgment!P. Abdul Kadar Hamza Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR14(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee to income-tax is the appellant. He is an engineer by profession and a contractor engaged in the execution of civil works for and on behalf of the Central Government. In this appeal, he has raised the following questions of law on which this court issued notice to the Department.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act in respect of an order of assessment which was barred by limitation and non est in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order annexure A was passed beyond the period of limitation mentioned under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no infirmity in the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Trivandrum Port and Headload Workers Co-operative Society L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR80]; (2001)ILLJ1629Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The following two questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:-'1. Whether the substitute (Badli worker) engaged and paid directly by a permanent labourer is a 'workman' as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Whether the opposite parties, namely the principal employer and the contractor, are liable to pay compensation to a substitute (Badli worker) engaged by the permanent labourer, for the injuries sustained by the substitute.' 2. The brief facts leading to the case are: October 25, 1989 was a tragic day to the then 23 year old 1 st respondent herein. While he was doing the work of loading foodgrains on behalf of the appellant at the premises of the F.C.I. godown at Kazhakkuttom, a pile of stacked sacks toppled and fell on his back. As can be seen from Ext. A4 medical certificate, having sustained fracture of spine and other serious injuries, 'he is suffering from paraplegia with pressure sore and urinary tract infection. He has got a pe...
Tag this Judgment!P. Abdul Kadar Hamza Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: [2001]246ITR14(Ker)
G. Sivarajan J.The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee to income-tax is the appellant. He is an engineer by profession and a contractor engaged in the execution of civil works for and on behalf of the Central Government. In this appeal, he has raised the following questions of law on which this court issued notice to the department.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act in respect of an order of assessment which was barred by limitation and non est in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order annexure A was passed beyond the period of limitation mentioned under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no infirmity in the order passed under section ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Santhosh Financiers,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Ker)542; [2001]247ITR742(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban J.1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue and are against a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The questions of law referred for our consideration are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the levy of penalty ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that it cannot be said that 'the assessees have concealed the income or the particulars of income' ; 'mens rea cannot be attributed' and are not the findings wrong, unreasonable militating and the conduct calculated and motivated if viewed in the light of the fact that the returns with 'noting' were filed only after the search and seizure and the returns for all the years were filed together and at the same time ?'2. The assessment years are 1991-92 and 1992-93. The questions are regarding the imposition of penalty under section ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. T.S. Sujatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: [2002]128STC405(Ker)
Lekshmikutty, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revenue is the revision-petitioner. The assessment year concerned is 1991-92. The respondent-assessee is a dealer in Indian-made foreign liquor having a shop at Chingavanam. She was also running a restaurant attached to the liquor shop. In the assessment for the year 1991-92 the assessee, inter alia, claimed exemption from payment of tax on the sale of cooked food in the restaurant on the basis of S.R.O. No. 1003/91. The assessing authority rejected the said claim. This was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate authority. However, in second appeal the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal granted the exemption. Hence the revision.2. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting exemption on the turnover of cooked food sold by the assessee in the restaurant run by her. During the relevant period, the sale of cooked food including coffee, ...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Mohammed Ali Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC424(Ker)
S. Sankarasubhan, J. 1. This tax revision case is filed against the order of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 353 of 1997 for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The point urged by the petitioner is that the Tribunal enhanced the taxable amount fixed by the assessing authority. Learned counsel relied on the decision in Stale of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores [1978] 42 STC 418 (SC) ; 1978 KLT 802. In the light of the above decision, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order the enhancement of the taxable turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the light of this, the order of the Tribunal enhancing turnover is set aside and the assessment order is confirmed.Tax revision case is disposed of as above....
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Bhat T. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker415
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J. 1. O. P. No. 17806/2000 : The petitioner is a Final Year Student of Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery in Dr. Padlar Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College, Chottanikkara. The said institution is affiliated to the first respondent-University and is functioning as provided by the University Regulations and Regulations issued by the Central Council of Homoeopathy. The Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery, for short 'BHMS', Course is a Bachelor Degree Course with five and a half years duration, including internship of one year. The petitioner, it is alleged, has passed her first and second year examination in Second Class. She has appeared for the Third Year examination during November, 1999 and the results of the same were published during May, 2000. 2. During the third year, altogether there were four subjects, viz. (1) Organon of Medicine, (2) Materia Medica, (3) Surgery, (4) Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The maximum marks awarded to these subjects...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »