Kerala Court December 2002 Judgments
Mohammed Abdul Kader Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Ker)324
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Against Ext. P1 assessment order, an appeal has been filed before the second respondent, evidenced by Ext. P2. The petitioner points out that Ext. P3 stay application is also filed along with the appeal. The petitioner apprehends enforcement of the assessment order and the original petition has been filed in the aforesaid context.2. I need not go into the merits of the contentions, but direct that if a copy of the judgment is produced, till such time orders are passed on the stay petition, enforcement as contemplated may be kept in abeyance.3. The original petition is disposed of with the above direction....
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Rajendran Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Ker)369; [2003]260ITR442(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in all these original petitions are either co-operative societies or co-operative banks registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act engaged in advancing loans to its members. Even though the societies are constituted to serve to various categories of people such as farmers, employees in companies, small traders, etc., their activities are essentially the same, i.e., advancing loans to its members and accepting deposits from members and public. These co-operative banks and societies are challenging the validity of notices issued to each of them under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act by various authorities under the Act. A specimen of the notices issued to the petitioner in O. P. No. 35300 of 2002, is extracted hereunder : 'In connection with the income-tax investigation in your case, you are requested to appear and furnish the following information in writing on November 22, 2002, at 11 a.m. 1. Whether you are assessed to inco...
Tag this Judgment!Desai Brothers Papers (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT837
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these original petitions are registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act engaged in the sale of paper. The dispute is against the demand of sales tax at the rate of 8 per cent as against 4 per cent paid by the petitioners for the period commencing from January 2002 to August 2002. Paper is an item taxable under Entry 106 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act at the point of first sale in the State. The rate of tax applicable until December 31, 2001 was 4 per cent. However, the rate of tax on paper was increased from 4 per cent to 8 per cent with effect from January 1, 2002 by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance No. 37 of 2001 published in Kerala Gazette dated December 31, 2001). This Ordinance was followed by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2002. Thereafter the Ordinance was superseded by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2002 by which...
Tag this Judgment!Denny Fernandez Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT280
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This Second Appeal has come up before us on the basis of a reference made by a single Judge of this Court who is of opinion that the decision in Roman Kannan v. State of Kerala reported in 1977 KLT 657 requires reconsideration in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Radhamany (1996 (6) SCC 287).2. The above Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for injunction filed by her to restrain the State and its officials from proceeding against the plaint schedule property under the Revenue Recovery Act by selling in auction to realise the abkari dues alleged to be due from one Mohankumar. According to the plaintiff, Mohankumar, the owner of the plaint schedule property entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Asok Kumar on 16.3.1987 for a total consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was received by Mohankumar on the same day. As Mohankumar committed breach of the agreement, Asok Kumar f...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Choyikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT494
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode in L.A.R. No. 288 of 1996. The lower courttried the above L.A.R. together with L.A.R. Nos. 191, 192 and 193 of 1996 of the same court and disposed of by the common judgment.2. In L.A.R. No. 288 of 1996 an extent of 0.0356 hectare of land comprised in R.S. No. 40/21 of Elathur Village was acquired for the purpose of Calicut bye-pass road of N.H. 47 as per the Notification dated 31.12.1993 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. By award dated 31.10.1995, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 4,600/- per cent. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference of their claim for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly the above L.A.R. was registered before the lower court. The reference court tried the above L...
Tag this Judgment!Kamath Marbles Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)319; 2003(1)KLT760
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are income-tax assessees engaged in business. They are challenging the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act which provides for 20% disallowance of expenditure in excess of Rs. 20,000-00 where such payments are made other than through account payee cheques or demand drafts drawn on a Bank. Section 40A(3) prior to its amendment with effect from 1.4.1997 provided for disallowance of entire expenditure subject to Rule 6DD in excess of payments over Rs. 10,000-00 made other than through account payee cheques and demand drafts. However, until the amendment of Rs. 6DD(j) with effect from. 1.12.1995 the assessing officer was free to allow deductions on cash payments in excess of Rs. 10,000-00 if he was satisfied that such payments are made in unavoidable circumstances or it was not practical to make payment other than through cash or payment through account payee cheque or demand drafts would have caused gen...
Tag this Judgment!Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: [2004]135STC224(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The short question arising in these cases is whether a hospital is a 'dealer' within the definition of that term contained in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the sales tax authorities under the Act under challenge are issued on the basis that the petitioners are 'dealers' under the Act. While in some cases notices are issued to the hospitals directing them to take registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, in some cases hospitals are directed to produce books of accounts and in yet another category penalty is levied or proposed either for not registering or for non-compliance with other statutory provisions. The validity or otherwise of all these proceedings will depend on whether the concerned hospital can be treated as a 'dealer' to subject it to all the disciplines provided under the Act and Rules. There is a standard pattern of service rendered in a hospital ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT276; [2004]138STC536(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessment year concerned is 1996-97. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the surcharge paid under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act can be reckoned for the purpose of computation of tax at the compounded rate under Section 7 of the Act.2. The State is the revision petitioner. The respondent is a jeweller and an assessee to sales tax under the Act. He opted for the benefit of paying tax at the compounded rate under Section 7(1) of the Act. The final assessment of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1996-97 was completed as under:Rs.Sales tax for the previous year33,950Surcharge due for the year1,698Total35,648Sales tax due for 1996-97 at 150 per cent of 1995-9653,472Surcharge due at 10 per cent5,348According to the respondent, for the year 1996-97 the surcharge paid on the amount of sales tax in the previous year cannot be reck...
Tag this Judgment!P.R.S. Hospital Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT633
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The short question arising in these cases is whether a hospital is a 'dealer' within the definition of that term contained in the K.G.S.T. Act, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the Sales Tax authorities under the Act under challenge are issued on the basis that the petitioners are 'Dealers' under the Act. While in some cases notices are issued to the hospitals directing them to take registration under the K.G.S.T. Act, in some cases hospitals are directed to produce books of accounts and in yet another category penalty is levied or proposed either for not registering or for non-compliance with other statutory provisions. The validity or otherwise of all these proceedings will depend on whether the concerned hospital can be treated as a 'dealer' to subject it to all the disciplines provided under the Act and Rules. There is a standard pattern of service rendered in a hospital and distinguishing factors among ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Vs. Sasi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT367
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This revision is directed against the Judgment dated 23rd November 2001 of the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal No. 167/2000. The case arose on a complaint filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner before the J.F.C.M.-I, Attingal alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation is that on 15th October 1996 the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs from the first respondent and issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on the State Bank of Venjaramoodu. When the cheque was presented for encashment it was returned dishonoured with the endorsement funds insufficient. Thereupon the first respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Since no payment was made pursuant to the notice, the complaint was filed.2. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the guilt of the petitioner P.W.1 to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »