Kerala Court January 2002 Judgments
Zodiac Advertisers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)361; 2004(166)ELT25(Ker); [2004]265ITR262(Ker); 2006[2]STR551
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the imposition of service tax on the taxable service of advertising agency by Finance Act 2 of 1996.2. The petitioner is a small scale industrial until which is engaged in the printing of materials for customers - like visiting cards, stickers, banners, posters etc. The Petitioner purchases the cloth required for the banner as per the requirements of the customer, and then prints the matter given by the customer on the banner. After completing the printing work, the material is returned to the customer. The petitioner claims that it has no idea how the matter is utilised by the customer, that the work undertaken by the petitioner is similar to that of a printing press, and it is not acting as an advertising agency for its customers.3. Service tax was introduced for the first time by the Finance Act, 1994 on certain categories of service. By the Finance Act 2 of 1996, it was extended to the t...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Colour Lab. Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Ker)464; 2003(156)ELT17(Ker); [2003]264ITR633(Ker); 2006[2]STR554; [2007]8STT353
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. Both these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the imposition of service tax under Finance Act of 1994, as amended by the Finance Act of 2001, on the taxable service provided by a photography studio or agency, in relation to photography, in any manner.2. Service tax was introduced for the first time by the Finance Act, 1994 and levied on certain categories of services like stock brokers, general insurers and telephone services. It came to be extended to advertising agencies, courier agencies and pager services by the Finance Act of 1996. The service tax net was widened by adding twelve more services by the Finance Act, 1997. By the Finance Act, 1998, twelve more service were brought within the purview of service tax, namely, Architects, Interior Decorators, Management Consultants, Real Estate Agents, Practising Chartered Accountants, Practising Company Secretaries, Practising Cost Accountants, Security Agencies, Credit Rating ...
Tag this Judgment!All Kerala Chartered Accountants Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Ker)268; [2002]258ITR679(Ker)
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the constitutional validity of Service Tax levied under the Finance Act, 1998 (2 of 1998) on taxable service rendered by practising Chartered Accountants.2. The petitioner is an Association of Chartered Accountants in Kerala registered under the Travancore Cochin Charitable Societies Act, which impugns the service tax levied on its members by reason of Sections 64 to 96 of the Finance Act, 1994, (32 of 1994), as amended by Finance Act, 1998 (2 of 1998).Background of the levy : As an off-shot of the recommendations of the Dr. Raja Chelliah Committee in 1990, for the first time, in the Union Budget for 1994-95, a levy of service tax on service relating to three categories, ie., stock brokers, general insurers and telephone services was imposed. The Raja Chelliah Committee had observed that indirect tax at the Central level should be broadly neutral in relation to production and consumption ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Nair Vs. Habeeb Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker308
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was filed for specific performance of an agreementto sell the plaint schedule property or in the alternative for return of the amountadvanced. The case of the plaintiff is as follows;2. The plaint schedule property belongs to defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration ofRs. 10 lakhs. The agreement was executed on 16.9.1998 and an advance amount ofRs. 1 lakh was given to the defendants. As per the agreement, the defendants agreedto execute the sale deed and put the plaintiff in possession of the property within one year.3.The defendants did not execute the sale deed. The defendants violated theterms and conditions of the agreement. Ultimately, the plaintiff sent lawyer notice on5.1.1991 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. A reply was given was given bythe defendants stating false and baseless matters. The defendants are liable andboun...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3203; 2002(82)ECC55
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The appellant, who is presently undergoing sentence as per the judgment of theAdditional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, acting as a Special Court for the trial of theNDPS Act cases passed on 28.6.2001, challenges the legality of the aforesaid judgmentwhereby he, as the 2nd accused in S.C. No. 147/98, was convicted for the offenceunder Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default, simple imprisonment for sixmonths) on the allegation that at about 11.45 am on 28.8.1997 he was found by PW6Assistant Sub Inspector of Alleppey North Police Station to be in possession of ganjacontained in 12 small packets in the company of the 1st accused who, in turn, washaving 8 such packets with him. The total weight of the ganja contained in the 20packets was alleged to be 16.5 grams.2. As the counsel, who filed the appeal was not available for arguing the case,Smt. T.K. Sreekala was appointed on...
Tag this Judgment!Anilkumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1]
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The order that is challenge (SIC) this Original Petition is Ext. P5 dated 9.1.2002 issued by the Government suspending the petitioner from service. Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P5. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, as per Ext. P2 order dated 27.9.2001 has issued a clarification under Section 59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The said order contained the following clarification: '(a) A hatchery owning a poultry farm in a leased land can register the farm as a branch of the hatchery under Section 13of the K.G.S.T. Act. (b) The chicks hatched in the hatcheries of the applicant and reared in her farms inside Kerala, on leased land as per the lease agreement, terms of which have been quoted above will be entitled for exemption, as per notification, on the sale of poultry.' 3. This was issued on a clarification sought by a hatchery owner of...
Tag this Judgment!Philomina Vs. Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1959; 2002(83)ECC861
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The wife of the detenue impugns the order passed by the designated authority under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA' Act, for short). It is alleged that on 24.12.2000 a person by name A. Mammu was traveling from Trivandrum to Doha by Qatar Airways and when his hand bag was searched, it was discovered that it contained 9 big thread rolls. On opening them it was discovered that foreign currencies were kept tied around the bobbins. The currencies were valued to the tune of Rs. 28,41,484.15. The passenger had a check in baggage, a cardboard carton tied with a yellow nylone rope. When this box was opened, a glass jar with pickle was recovered. Inside they discovered a plastic packet containing foreign currency valued at Rs. 45,43,939.05. Along with the same certain documents were also recovered which included a sheet of paper in which certain names were written including the...
Tag this Judgment!institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR98(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, authorises representatives to appear on behalf of the assessees. Such representatives may include legal practitioners and chartered accountants. For easy reference, the said section is extracted hereinbelow :'288. Appearance by authorised representative.--(1) Any assessee who is entitled or required to attend before any income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal in connection with any proceeding under this Act otherwise than when required under Section 131 to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation may, subject to the other provisions of this section, attend by an authorised representative.(2) For the purposes of this section, 'authorised representative' means a person authorised by the assessee in writing to appear on his behalf, being--(i) a person related to the assessee in any manner, or a person regularly employed by the assessee ; or(ii) any officer of a scheduled bank with which the assessee main...
Tag this Judgment!institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Kottayam Branch Vs. Union ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Ker)250
M. Ramachandran, J.Section 288 of the Income Tax Act authorises representatives to appear on behalf of assessees. Such representatives may include legal practitioners and chartered accountants. For easy reference, the said section is extracted hereinbelow :'288. Appearance by authorised representative.(1) Any assessee who is entitled or required to attend before any income-tax authority or the Tribunal in connection with any proceeding under this Act otherwise than when required under section 131 to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation, may, subject to the other provisions of this section, attend by an authorised representative.(2) For the purposes of this section, 'authorised representative' means a person authorised by the assessee in writing to appear on his behalf, being :(i) a person related to the assessee in any manner, or a person regularly employed by the assessee; or(ii) any officer of a scheduled bank with which the assessee maintains a current account or...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanth Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1942
G. Sasidharan, J.1. The petitioners are accused in Excise Crime No. 12 of 2001 of NeyyattinkaraExcise Range. On 15.6.2001 at about 9 p.m. petitioners were going in a scooter andthe exercise party intercepted and seized 12 bottles of beer. Crime and occurrencereport was filed in the Court alleging that they committed the offences under Sections 8(1)and (2), 55(a) and 67B of the Abkari Act. Annexure-1 is the crime and occurrencereport filed in Court by the Assistant Excise Inspector, Neyyattinkara Range.2. According to the petitioners, the crime and occurrence report and the furtherproceedings in the Court in pursuance of that have to be quashed for the reason thatthe allegations against them will not constitute commission of the offences mentionedin the crime and occurrence report. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionerswould submit that the bottles of beer were purchased by the petitioners and their threefriends together from the shop run by the Beverages Corporation. The sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »