Kerala Court November 2001 Judgments
Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1765
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed challenging the order of Workmen's CompensationCommissioner, Ernakulam in W.C.C. No. 117 of 1993. M.F.A. No. 547 of 1997 wasfiled by the workman who filed application for compensation claiming enhancementof compensation. M.F.A. No. 296 of 1997 was filed by the insurance company of theemployer, who was directed to pay compensation, contending that amount orderedwas arbitrary violating the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Claimant workman while employed as a helperin a factory, met with an accident in the course of employment. As a result of theaccident arising out of employment the lost his thumb, index and middle fingers. Employerimmediately intimated the matter to the insurance company. The workman was only22 years of age. Medical practitioner certified that he suffered 24% loss of earningcapacity. The workman claimed compensation for 'total disablement'. Commissionerawarded compens...
Tag this Judgment!Periyar Latex Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: [2003]130STC78(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These two tax revision cases filed by the assessee are for the assessment years 1992-93 (T.R.C. No. 474 of 2001) and 1994-95 (T.R.C. No. 484 of 2001).2. The assessee is engaged in trading and processing of rubber. The main activity of the assessee is purchase of field latex, conversion of the same into centrifuged latex, and sale of the product locally as well as inter-State. The assessee has also obtained certificate of exemption from the Industries Department stating that it is entitled to sales tax exemption as an SSI unit manufacturing centrifuged latex. The certificate produced as annexure I provides for exemption from October 3, 1991 to October 2, 1998. The assessee has claimed exemption on the purchase of field rubber latex and on sale of centrifuged latex. The assessee's main contention is that the field latex and centrifuged latex are different forms of one and the same commodity, namely, rubber, coming under entry No. 110 of the First Schedule to ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Credit and Investments Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: [2004]134STC264(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The above two tax revision cases filed by the assessee under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 arise from the assessments for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The assessee is a financier engaged in the purchase and delivery of goods under hire-purchase agreement with parties. Goods such as equipments, machinery, vehicles, etc., are purchased locally in Kerala as well as from outside State. The assessing officer held that the assessee is a purchaser and reseller of these items and therefore the assessee's sales are subject to sales tax in Kerala except in respect of second sales which are transactions of purchases and sales in Kerala. The assessee's sales are by way of delivery of possession on execution of hire-purchase agreement with customers. The assessee will retain the title of goods, though delivery is given to the customer, and title passes on to the customer only on payment of the last instalment. In the event of breach o...
Tag this Judgment!James Vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: [2003]129STC338(Ker)
M. Ramchandran, J.1. The impact of Section 30B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the proceduralformalities to be observed in the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act are requested to be examined in the present OriginalPetition which is field by an assessee under the Sales Tax Act. Petition is engagedin the proprietary business of dealing in plastic furniture at Valara in Idukki District.On 16.8.2001, a notice had been issued to him by the Agricultural Income Tax andSales Tax Officer, Adimali initiating him that it has come to his notice that fewconsignments, sent by M/s. National Flask Industries Ltd., Silvassa and G. SarmaCorporation, Mumbai in the name of the petitioner during 1999 had not been accountedby him and therefore, it had been decided to impose penalty under Section 45A of theK.G.S.T. Act. A copy of the notice is produced as Ext. P1. Petitioner claims that he had filed objection thereto showing that as regards the consign...
Tag this Judgment!Upasana Hospital and Nursing Home Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR507(Ker)
C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The income-tax reference case is about the validity of a rectification order passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1986-87. Thequestion referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee is the following :'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the validity of the order under Section 154 dated April 30, 1990, as an order of rectification in respect of a mistake apparent on record ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm running a nursing home at Quilon. The business premises of the assessee, and the residential premises of the partners and employees were searched by the Income-tax Department on December 19, 1985, recovering cash, deposit receipts, promissory notes, etc. In the assessment pursuant to search for the assessment year 1986-87 completed on March 17,1989, the income was assessed at Rs. 24,55,780, which included an addition of Rs. 11,67,000. Out...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC582(Ker)
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in these four original petitions filed by four nationalised petroleum companies, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and I.B.P. Company Ltd. Hence they were heard together and are being disposed of through a common judgment.2. The challenge in all these cases is with regard to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes refusing to interfere with the orders of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and confirming the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, directing forfeiture of amounts allegedly collected by the said assessees towards 'State surcharge'. The relevant details pertaining to the four original petitions are summarised and tabulated hereunder :O.P.Nos.Name of theassesseeAssessment yearAmount forfeited under section 46A123420202/01H.P.C.9...
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT759
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are employees of the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank. The petitioners entered service prior to 1.1.1974 on which date Chap.XV was introduced in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Thereunder by Rule 186 of the Rules qualifications were prescribed for appointing for the posts in Co-operative Societies. Rule 185 of the Rules dealt with promotion. Under Rule 186, all posts other than those requiring technical qualifications, the starting pay of which is Rs. 250.00 and above would be filled only by candidates who had a degree in Commerce or Masters degree in Arts of a recognised University, with Co-operation as special subject or a degree from any recognised University and a Higher Diploma in Co-operation or a Diploma in Rural Services with Co-operation as optional subject or B.Sc. (Co-operation & Banking) Degree of the Kerala Agricultural University. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan Vs. Sasidharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1672
T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. The prayer made in the petition filed (Annexure A is the true copy of the petition) by the revision petitioner before the court below (Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala. in C.C. No. 522/98 was for ordering reinvestigation in C.C. Nos. 533 and 522 of 1998 pending before the Court so as to ensure full justice to them (they claim to be innocent). The learned Magistrate declined to allow the prayer made in Annexure-A petition and calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order (Annexure B order), this revision has been preferred. Without adverting to the assertions made by the revision petitioner in Annexure-A, voicing grievance against the alleged lopsided, faulty and perfunctory manner of investigation conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Muhamma Police Station in Crime No. 134/98 of that police station which culminated in laying Chellan against the revision petitioners accusing them of having committed the o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode Bench and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC411(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The best person to dispute a signature is the signatory himself. But when signatory himself disputes a signature affixed years back, is it reasonable, rather prudent to obtain sample signature after informing the person the purpose and subject the same to expert study Yet another interesting feature of the instant case is the challenge by the State on the validity of a regulation framed with its approval.2. The original petition is at the instance of the State. There is a challenge against Regulation 37 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966 framed under Section 4(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' with the previous sanction of the Government. Regulation 37 reads as follows :'The Tribunal may, in any proceedings, issue a Commission for the examination, or interrogatories, or otherwise, of any person or for examining the accounts or records of any person resident within the State. Provisions of ord...
Tag this Judgment!Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN550(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J.These references are at the instance of the assessee, against the judgment of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in R.A. Nos. 269 to 281 (Coch) of 1991, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Commissioner, Cochin. The following questions of law are referred for the opinion of this court'1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right, on the facts and circumstances of the case, in holding that there was business connection between FACT and foreign collaborators, i.e., M/s. Societa-De-Prayon (formerly Engineering & Industrial Corporation) of Belgium, M/s. Davy Power Gas Inc., U.S.A. and M/s. Chemiebau Dr. A. Sieiren GmbH and GoKG (now M/s. Davy Power Gas Gab, West Germany) in the relative technical collaboration agreements entered into between FACT and the said companies ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that rendering of service...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »