Kerala Court December 2001 Judgments
N.P.R. Finance Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC198
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner contending that writ petitioner being the financier is not legally liable to pay the amount due from third respondent by way of arrears of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this court in State of Kerala v. Sree Poornathrayeesa Vilasam Bank Ltd., 1971 KLJ 154 as well as unreported decision of this Court in O.P. 20121 of 1998. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in M. TKunju Muhammed v. Regional Transport Authority, MalaPPuram, AIR 2000 Ker, 231.2. We are of the view in view of the clear provision in the Statute the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act liability is fixed under Section 9 of the Act. We may extract the said provision for easy reference.'9. Liability to pay of tax by persons succeeding to the ownership, possession or control of motor vehicles:-(1) If the tax leviable in...
Tag this Judgment!Surendran Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR139]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether theemployees of associate or nominal members of the Apex or Central Society are alsoeligible for appointment for the post of Clerk-Cashier in the District Co-operativeBank on the basis of Ext. P1 notification.2. In the notification it is stated that 50% of the vacancies will be filled up byselection from eligible employees of Primary Co-operative Societies and rank list willbe prepared for each District Co-operative Banks. As per the notification 50% of theappointment is by direct recruitment and 50% from eligible employees of the PrimaryCo-operative Societies and separate rank lists will be published in respect of bothcategories. Applications were invited by the Public Service Commission as per theamended Co-operative Societies Rules reads as follows:187. Vacancies in Apex Society or Central Societies - Notwithstanding anythingcontained in Rule 186, in appointments to apex societies or cen...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Dayanandan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR174(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner was the proprietor of a jewellery by name 'Subhash Jewellery' in Payyannur. The fifth respondent is also conducting a jewellery business by name 'Pavithram' in Payyannur. They are first cousins. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, who is the proprietor of Pavithram Jewellery was a goldsmith, that he started goldsmith work and had amassed substantial assets by converting black money into white money through his benamis. The petitioner has filed this original petition seeking for direction to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to enquire into the assets of the fifth respondent on the basis of the complaints, information and encumbrance certificates exhibits P13 to P16 and take appropriate action against him in accordance with law. It is stated in the original petition that the fifth respondent has got landed properties worth about Rs. 5 crores, that he purchased Panchami jewellery shop in Payyannur town for about Rs. 13 lakhs, that he also purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!Raju T.K. Vs. Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR816]; (2002)IIILLJ213Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Both the appeals are preferred against the judgment in O.P. No. 15479 of 1995. Writ Petition was preferred by one T.K. Raju, Senior Sales Officer challenging the order of dismissal from service of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the Corporation.)2. Writ petitioner while working as Senior Sales Officer was served with charge memo dated July 27, 1992. Charges levelled against him are as follows:'That in November 1991 you had taken the loan of Rs. 5000/- from Rose Flames, Cochin and the said amount was repaid by you only after a period of five months i.e. only after the show cause notice Ref. C. PERS. STF dated December 10, 1991 was served on you by CDM, Cochin Divisional Office. At that time you had also taken one DPR (Differential Pressure Regulator) from the aforesaid Distributor which has not been returned or replaced by you. You had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from Jyothi Gas, Tripunithura and the said amount was returned only after a...
Tag this Judgment!Casino Hotel Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2004]138STC377(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These two Tax Revision Cases are filed against the common judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench II, Ernakulam in T.A. Nos. 354 and 355 of 1995. The assessment years are 1989-90 and 1990-91. The assessing authority found that the assessee is liable to sales tax on the purchase turnover of certain goods taxable at the last purchase point such as prawns, lobster, groundnut, etc. It was further found that the assessee was liable to tax on the purchase turnover of prawns, lobsters, groundnut, etc. 2. Aggrieved by the assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the assessing authority. Against that an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. It is against that the present revision is filed. 3. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in so far as the purchase turnover of certain goods at the la...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Dayanandan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Ker)160
G. Sivarajan, J.The petitioner was the proprietor of a jewellery by name 'Subhash Jewellery' in Payyannur. The 5th respondent is also conducting a jewellery by name 'Pavithram' in Payyannur. They are first cousins. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent, who is the proprietor of Pavithram Jewellery was a goldsmith, that he started goldsmith work and had amassed substantial assets by converting black money into white money through his benamis. The petitioner has filed this original petition seeking for direction to respondents 2 to 4 to enquire into the assets of the 5th respondent on the basis of the complaints, information and encumbrance certificates Exts. P13 to P16 and take appropriate action against him in accordance with law. It is stated in the original petition that the 5th respondent has got landed properties worth about 5 crores, that he purchased Panchami Jewellery shop in Payyannur town for about Rs. 13 lakhs, that he also purchased a medical shop for about Rs. 2 l...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. M.T. Aboobacker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC108(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This T.R.C. is filed by the State of Kerala against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, in T.A. No. 479 of 2000. The facts of the case are as follows :The revision relates to the assessment year 1994-95, Assessee is a dealer in stainless steel kitchen sink. Dispute in this case relates to its rate of tax. According to the assessee, it would fall under entry 149 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and according to the department, it would fall under entry 125 of the Act. If it falls under entry 125 of the Act, tax will be levied at 12.5 per cent while if it falls under entry 149 of the Act, the tax will be levied at 10 per cent. The assessing authority completed the assessment treating the stainless steel kitchen sink as an item falling under entry 125. Copy of the assessment order is produced as annexure A. The first appellate authority confirmed the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Cable and Engineering Works Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC178(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Assessee is the petitioner and the assessment year is 1989-90. Tax revision case is filed against the judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A. No. 99 of 1998. The facts of the case are as follows :2. Petitioner is the assessee. It was engaged in the manufacture and sale of aluminium wire. The assessing authority finalised the assessment for the year 1989-90 on March 10, 1997. It added an amount of Rs. 71,50,740 to the taxable turnover returned being the market value of 164.264 metres of aluminium rods given as material loan to Alind (Kundara) during the year 1981-82. A security deposit of Rs. 34,72,845.14 was collected by the petitioner towards the loan as evidenced by the book entries and continued effort for getting back the materials supplied by way of loan failed. Hence, security collected was forfeited in the year 1989-90.3. The assessing officer took the stand that the loan when adjusted during the year 1989...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Jacob K. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN332(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.These appeals are filed by the revenue against the common order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in IT Appeal Nos. 246 to 249 (Coch) of 1996. The assessment years are 1987-88 to 1990-91. The question of law raised in these cases is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of the payments made to the Co-operative Society Ltd., Bombay, on account of water charges, security charges, society management expenses, etc., under section 24(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?' The facts of the case are as follows:2. The assessee was having one-third ownership in a flat in Anand Kamal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bombay. While filing the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs. 25,560 as co-operative society's dues for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and Rs. 92,052 for the other two assessment years in computing income from house property. These dues were towards the municipal tax...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.V. Divakaran Family Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR222(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The assessee is a trust assessable to tax under Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return by levying tax at 55 per cent, plus surcharge. The assessee made an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for rectification of the assessment on the ground that the 'maximum marginal rate' referred to in Explanation 2 to Section 164(3) of the Act is not the maximum rate of tax applied by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer rejected the application holding that there was no mistake in the rate applied and the tax computed. On first appeal, the first appellate authority held that the issue regarding the interpretation of 'maximum marginal rate' was a debatable issue and therefore no application for rectification was maintainable and hence he dismissed the appeal. On further appeal, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's case by holding that the 'maximum marginal ra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »