Kerala Court August 2001 Judgments
Jojo Frozen Foods Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC207(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. A question of interpretation of S.R.O. No. 1728 of 1993 as amended by S.R.O. No. 429 of 1995 and S.R.O. No. 585 of 1996 arises in this case. The year in question is the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee is a small-scale industrial unit. According to the assessee, as per S.R.O. No. 429 of 1995, small-scale industrial unit whose turnover does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000 were entitled to deduction of tax. Subsequently, by S.R.O. No. 585 of 1996, an explanation was added wherein it is stated that where the turnover of the unit exceeds the limit of Rs. 50,00,000 during the first year in which the turnover crosses the limit higher rate will be applied only on the turnover above Rs. 50,00,000. This explanation shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from April 1, 1995. The assessee contended that for the year 1995-96, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the explanation. But this was rejected by the authorities. Hence, this revision.2. S.R.O. No. 1728...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)357; 2001CriLJ4364
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C. 3/1998 tried by the Special Judge for trial of the N.D.P.S. Act cases, Vadakara. He challenges the conviction entered against him for the offence under S. 21 of the NDPS Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (in default simple imprisonment for six months) imposed therefor. 2. The prosecution alleged that at about 3.30 p.m. on 17.3.1997 the appellant and the second accused involved in the aforesaid case, who was acquitted by the trial court, were found entering a latrine situated on the western side of the old State Bank building at Koduvally. They closed the door behind them. Feeling suspicious of their movements, some persons of the locality peeped in through the door and found that the accused were engaged in treating something in a steel vessel and also drawing out something out of it through a syringe. Some article like cigar lighter, lead papers, plastic bottles and sci...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Standard Pottery Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR265]; (2001)IILLJ1208Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The E.S.I. Corporation has come up in appeal challeing in the order of E.I. Court, Alleppey, in I.C. No. 104/88, disallowing the demand of the Corporation for contribution from the employer on the basis of the expenditure met towards the maintenance of the establishment and for the construction of a compound wall.2. The 1st respondent Standard Pottery Words, Always, was a covered establishment under The E.S.I.Corporation issued notice demanding additional contribution of Rs.6682.30 on a sum of Rs.92169.39. The liability to pay contribution on the above amount was disputed by the employer.The amount were verified again and on a re-assessment the employer was called upon to pay contribution of Rs. 2986.55 on an amount of Rs./ 41193.52 on the following items.Sl. No. ItemWage elementContribution1.Generator Installation1841.24133.502.Tunnel Kiln expansion378.0027.403.Building Maintenance2750.00199.404.Kiln Repair & Maintenance32207.122335.005.Building Maintenance2142....
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Rubber and Reclaims Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC584(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Admittedly, reclaimed rubber was treated as rubber up to October 31, 1986. From November 1, 1986 by way of clarification under Section 59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, it was treated as rubber product. The assessment year in question is 1986-87. The contention of the assessee was that for the entire year 1986-87 it shall be treated as rubber. The Tribunal in paragraph 3 of annexure IV order held that 'the argument of the appellant does not hold merit as reclaimed rubber has been classified as rubber product from November 1, 1986'. Thereafter, a petition under Section 43 of the Act was filed by the assessee, which was disposed of by annexure V order. In paragraph 6 of the above order, the Tribunal, has stated that it is not on the basis of the clarification under Section 59A that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is rubber product from November 1, 1986. But it is not stated on what basis the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was rubbe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›