Kerala Court October 2002 Judgments
K.K. Ibrahimkutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC123(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these T.R.Cs. arise from a common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, in T.A. Nos. 500 of 1997 and 466 of 1998. Assessee is the revision-petitioner. The facts of the case are as follows :2. The dispute relates to the disallowance of concessional rate based on form 18 declaration filed under Section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act'). The declarations were obtained from the purchasing dealer, M/s. Travancore Sugars and Chemicals, Thiruvalla. As per Section 5(3) of the KGST Act, concessional rate is applicable to a dealer in respect of industrial raw materials, component parts, containers or packing materials. The assessing authority disallowed the claim holding that the firewood that is supplied by the revision-petitioner to the above-mentioned manufacturing concern is not a raw material required to produce arrack and sugar. Accordingly the assessing authority asses...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kerala State Small I.D. and E. Corporation Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT414
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The appellant is the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, and the defendant in the suit. The suit was for damages on account of short delivery. The wagon containing the article arrived in the destination on 29.9.1981 and a request for re-weighment of the goods was rejected by the Chief Goods Clerk on the same day. Thereafter the plaintiff got it weighed on 1.10.1981 and Ext. A5 certificate showing the actual loss was obtained. Therefore, the limitation for filing the suit will start on 1.10.1981. Under Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, the day from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned is to be excluded. Thus the suit should have been filed under Art. 10 of the Limitation Act at least on 1.10.1984. However, a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had to be. sent and it was received by the defendant on 1.10.1984. The suit was filed on 16.11.1984 with a petition for permission to file the suit before the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Pachu Vs. Chirutha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT241
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. Defendants 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 32 and 33 are the appellants. The suit is for partition. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Koran @ Cherooty and on his death the properties devolved upon his three sons, Pachu, Kandan and Kuttayi. Plaintiff is the daughter of Pachu. Defendants 17 to 24 and 25 and 26 are the children of two other daughters of Pachu. The suit for partition was resisted on the basis of Ext. B-1 which was executed on 24th February, 1953 between the legal heirs of Kandan and Kuttayi. Under that document, the rights of Imbichi Manikyam, the wife of Pachu, for maintenance by taking the income from certain trees was recognised. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right for partition as Pachu died before the Hindu Succession Act came into force and his right survived to the other two brothers. The trial court found that Pachu died before the commencement of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act and therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Mrs. Johna Austin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Ker)413; [2004]265ITR595(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The following question of law is referred under Section 26(1) of the GT Act at the instance of the Revenue.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the observation of the Kerala High Court in its Full Bench decision CIT v. P.M. Paily Pillai : [1972]86ITR516(Ker) 'there is no legal obligation on the part of Christian father to maintain or educate his minor children', the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding : (i) Christian father is under a legal obligation to maintain his daughter (ii) Maintenance of a daughter includes getting her married; (iii) A reasonable amount paid at the time of marriage cannot be considered a gift liable to gift-tax; (iv)'The property worth Rs. 1,50,000 transferred by the assessee to his daughter is not liable to gift-tax ?' 2. The matter arises under the GT Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The assessment year concerned is 1989-90. The respondent-assessee gifted away 8.14 acres of land...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. Sannidhanam Bar and Re ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC380(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The only question raised in this tax revision case is regarding the rate of tax on the sale of soda effected in the bar attached hotel.2. The assessee is bar attached hotel. The assessment year concerned is 1992-93. In the return filed by the assessee for the year 1992-93 the assessee claimed that soda sold in the bar attached hotel falls squarely under entry 40 of the Fist Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as it stood at the relevant time taxable only at 6 per cent. The assessing authority did not accept the said contention as he was of the view that 'soda' squarely falls under entry 87 of the First Schedule to the Act. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the assessing authority. However, in the second appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal has taken the view that soda is a beverage and therefore since the same is sold by a bar attached hotel it falls under entry 40 of the First Schedule which is a special ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›