Kerala Court June 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Alanallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)310
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. The appellants are co-operative banks. They had approached this Court to challenge the notices issued by the IT Department, Copies of these notices were produced as Exts. P-6 to P8. By these notices the appellants were asked to furnish certain information in connection with the income-tax investigation. The details of income, etc. were asked for. In particular, the appellants were directed to furnish 'list of persons who have made term/recurring deposits of Rupees fifty-thousand and above as on date along with their complete postal addresses and amounts of deposits...' Aggrieved by these notices, the appellants had approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The matter was considered by the learned Single Judge. It was held that the notices were in complete conformity with the provisions of Section 133(6) of the IT Act 1961. Thus, the petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.3. Mr. Gilbert George, learned counsel for the ...
Cit Vs. Trichur Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN249(Ker)
All these appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi against two separate orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. Nos. 312,313, & 314/Coch/95 in respect of the assessment years 1986-87,1987-88 & 1988-89 in connection with orders passed by the assessing officer under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in I.T.A. Nos. 233, 234 & 235/Coch./95 in respect of assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 & 1988-89 in connection with the orders passed by the assessing officer levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 27, 42 & 50 of 2000 are the appeals filed against the order of the Tribunal on the question arising under section 201(1) of the Act and I.T.A. Nos. 38, 41 & 43 of 2000 are filed against the order of the Tribunal on the question of imposition of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act.2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of these appeals are as follows: The respondent...
Pookoya Haji Vs. Cheriyakoya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT32
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are in these cases concerned with the jurisdiction and powers of the Wakf Tribunals constituted in the State of Kerala by the Wakf Act, 1995. A learned single Judge of this Court, C.S. Rajan, J. in Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya (1999 (1) KLT 794) took the view that the Wakf Tribunal has been constituted by the Government under S. 83(1) of the Wakf Act so as to decide any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. Learned Judge held under Section 83(2) of the Act any mutawalli or any other person aggrieved by an order made under the Wakf Act or Rules may make an application to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf. Judgment of the learned single Judge, C.S. Rajan, J. is appealed against in W.A.2273/99. P.R. Raman, J. another learned Judge of this Court in Abdul Rahiman Musaliar v. Muhammed Sahib (2002 (3) KLT 742) while interpreting Sections 83 and 85 of Wakf Act took the vi...
Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyapura Pookoya Haji Vs. Pattakkal Cheriyakoy ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker366
Radhkrishnan, J.1. We are in these cases concerned with the Jurisdiction and powers of the Wakf Tribunals constituted in the State of Kerala by the Wakf Act, 1995. A learned single Judge of this Court, C.S. Rajan, J, in Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya, (1999) 1 Ker LT 794 : (AIR 1999 Kerala 289) took the view that the Wakf Tribunal has been constituted by the Government under Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, so as to decide any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. Learned Judge held under Section 83(2) of the Act any Mutawalli or any other person aggrieved by an order made under the Wakf Act or Rules may make an application to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf. Judgment of the learned single Judge, C.S. Rajan, J. is appealed against in W.A. 2273/99. P.R. Raman, J. another learned Judge of this Court in Abdul Rahiman Musaliar v. Muhammed Sahib (2002) 3 Ker LT 742 : (AIR 2003 Kerala 84) while inter...
Deputy Commissioner Vs. Rejula Jospeh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT258
G. Sivarajan, J.The Deputy Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam, is the revision petitioner in both these cases. The respondent-assessee is also the same. The assessment years concerned are 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. The only question that arises for consideration in both these cases is as to whether crumb rubber/crumb rubber powder is an item liable to tax at the rate of 6 per cent under Entry 161 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963, as it stood during the relevant assessment years. The assessing authority has taken the view that the item crumb rubber (the contention of the assessee is that the item dealt with is crumb rubber powder) falls under item 161 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, and therefore, liable to be taxed at the rate of 6 per cent. The assessee's contention was that the item is liable to be assessed only at the rate of 5 percent as an unclassified item. The f...
Tony Vs. Navodaya Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker245; 2003(2)KLT866
ORDERKurian Joseph, J.1. What is the difference between attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII and attachment in execution under Order XXI? Whether a pre-decretal attachment under Order XXXVIII would be treated as post decretal attachment in execution under Order XXI by virtue of the 1976 amendment to the CPC introducing Rule 57 under Order XXI and Rule 11A under Order XXXVIII? These are the two interesting issues for consideration in this civil revision petition.2. Short facts: The petitioners, husband and wife, are the judgment debtors in E.P. No. 684/1999 in O.P. No. 175/1985 on the files of the II Additional Sub Court, Trichur. The suit was filed for realisation of amounts advanced to the petitioners-defendants. An attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 was effected on 25.3.1985. The suit was decreed on 8.4.1988. The plaintiff-respondent filed E.P. No. 182/1990 against the first petitioner herein by initiating steps under Rule 37 of Order XXI. However, the E.P. was dismissed...
Aluminium Fabricating Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2003
Reported in: [2005]139STC161(Ker)
1. The question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether an assessee who is a works contractor is liable to produce the contracts entered into by him with the awarders as a condition for the grant of permission to make payment of tax at the compounded rate provided under Sub-section (7)/(7A) of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act').2. The same assessee is the revision petitioner in both the cases. State of Kerala is the respondent. The assessment years concerned are 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. For the said two years the assessee had applied for payment of tax at the compounded rate as provided under Sub-section (7A) of Section 7 of the Act (for short 'the Act'). It appears that the assessee had made an application in form 21B prescribed under rule 30A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. The assessing authority had rejected the said application on the ground that the assessee had not complied with the requirements of...
Collector of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Leelamma George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT17(Ker); 2003(3)KLT691
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Kochi-18 has come up with this appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P. 291/1990. Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued to the husband of the first respondent and the father of the remaining respondents, who will be styled in this judgment as writ petitioners. Before the finalisation of the proceedings, he died. The proceedings were continued by issuing Ext.P4 notice to the writ petitioners. They filed Ext.P5 petition before the authority, who issued Ext.P4, contending that the authority did not have jurisdiction to continue the proceedings as the original notice, Ext.P3, had been issued to their father who was no more. There was no law enabling the officer to continue the proceedings with reference to the short levy of the excise duty payable by the deceased, against his legal representatives; But this question was not decided by the authority, who issued Ext.P4. It was at that point of...
Nandakumar Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1155; (2004)IILLJ109Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The petitioner while working as Range Officer was placed under suspension. After getting Ext.P5 explanation, Ext.P6 order was passed by the first respondent imposing punishment of bar of one increment with cumulative effect. Even though the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and explanation was called for, no detailed enquiry was conducted regarding the matter. Ext.P5 is the explanation given by the petitioner in this regard. The appeal as well as the Revision Petition filed by him were also dismissed. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that before imposing major penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect, enquiry should have been conducted. It is the contention of the Government that barring of one increment with cumulative effect is a minor punishment for which no enquiry is required. The explanation of the petitioner was considered in detail and a speaking order was passed and it was confirmed in appeal and Revision Petit...
State of Kerala Vs. Steel Industrial Kerala Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST618(Ker)
1. The State is the revision petitioner. The assessee is the respondent. The matter arises under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The assessment years concerned are 1985-86 to 1991-92. The respondent-assessee is a Government owned company. It is engaged in the business of ship breaking at Bepore in Kerala. The materials gathered from the ship breaking are sold by the assessee, according to them, both by inter-State sales and by stock transfer/consignment sales. There is no dispute with regard to the inter-State transactions claimed by the assessee. The only dispute is with regard to certain turnover of stock transfer/consignment sales effected by the assessee to its branch at Coimbatore. The assessing authority did not accept the case of the assessee regarding the stock transfer/consignment sales claimed on the ground that the said transaction is also inter-State sales effected as per agreements entered into between the assessee and various parties in the State of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »