Kerala Court September 2004 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.
K.M. Salim Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer, Commercial Taxes
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: (2007)11VST11(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P8 order wherein an application for registration under the KGST and CST Acts are rejected by the respondent. The petitioner is challenging the findings in exhibit P8. If the findings are true then of course there is no case for any interference at all. In the first place the officer has stated that the owner of the mill which is stated to have been taken on lease by the petitioner has informed him that he does not know the whereabouts of the petitioner. Further the sureties offered by the petitioner are people without any credibility. It is also stated that one of the sureties offered by the petitioner is already a surety for registration granted to another dealer who is a substantial defaulter. If that be so I do not know why the officer is not proceeding against the sureties for recovery of the arrears due from that dealer. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of a surety is not a ground for declini...
Fast and Safe Transports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT512
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Two transporting agencies and the Ernakulam Chamber of Commerce representing transporting agencies generally are the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Section 45B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called the 'Act'. While Sub-section (1) of the impugned Section provides for levy of penalty at double the amount of sales tax for transport of goods in Kerala without the documents prescribed under Section 29(2) of the Act, for repeated offence, Sub-section (2) in addition to penalty provides for detention of the vehicle involved for a period of thirty days. The impugned section introduced to the Act with effect from 1.4.2000 is extracted hereunder for easy reference: 45B. Penalty for transport of goods without records. (1) If any officer empowered under Sub-section (1)of Section 29A finds on inspection of any vehicle or vessel that any transport agency or contract carnage transport any goods without the documents required und...
Ernakulam Chamber of Commerce Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT822; [2005]142STC538(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Two transporting agencies and the Ernakulam Chamber of Commerce representing transporting agencies generally are the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Section 45B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act hereinafter called the 'Act'. While Sub-section (1) of the impugned Section provides for levy of penalty at double the amount of sales tax for transport of goods in Kerala without the documents prescribed under Section 29(2) of the Act, for repeated offence, Sub-section (2) in addition to penalty provides for detention of the vehicle involved for a period of thirty days. The impugned section, introduced to the Act with effect from 1.4.2000 is extracted hereunder for easy reference: 45B. Penalty for transport of goods without records.1. If any Officer empowered under Sub-section (1) of Section 29A finds on inspection of any vehicle or vessel that any transport agency or contract carriage transport any goods without the documents required unde...
Saju K. Abraham Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)95; 2005(1)KLT107
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Writ Petitioner is the appellant. He filed O.P.28900/2000 seeking certain reliefs in respect of court fee leviable on an authorisation like Ext.P1 to be produced before the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, to represent an assessee. The authorisation is to be filed by a Chartered Accountant or an Income Tax Practitioner, not being an Advocate. Even admittedly by the counsel, the court fee asked to be affixed on such authorisation is only Re. 1/-. That is permissible in terms of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Therefore, there arises no question of any direction being issued with regard to the levy of court fee on authorisations like Ext.P1.2. Therefore, none of the reliefs sought for in the O.P. could be granted and the O.P. had been rightly dismissed.3. The averments in the O.P. reveals that persons like the petitioner are asked that stamp duty required in terms of Article 44 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 shall be affixed on such authorisati...
All Kerala Tourist Taxi Association Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT971
K.K. Denesan, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) 32027/2003. All Kerala Tourist Taxi Association is the appellant/petitioner. Reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition were to quash Ext.P4 and to declare that the power to grant tourist permits is exclusive function of the State Transport Authority and it cannot be delegated to the Regional Transport Officers. The learned Single Judge held that Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', has authorised the State Transport Authority to delegate its powers to the Regional Transport Officers, provided, the State Government has framed rules in that behalf under Section 96 of the Act and thus sustained Ext.P-4. Aggrieved, this Writ Appeal was filed.2. Ext.P4 is the copy of the proceedings of the State Transport Authority by which the said authority decided to delegate to the Regional Transport Officers in purported exercise o...
Saju K. Abrham Vs. Ito
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN345(Ker)
Abdul Gafoor, J. Writ petitioner is the appellant. He filed O.P. 28900/2000 seeking certain reliefs in respect of court fee leviable on an authorization like Ext. P 1 to be produced before the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, to represent an assessee. The authorization is to be filed by a Chartered Accountant or an income-tax practitioner, not being an advocate. Even admittedly by the counsel, the court fee asked to be affixed on such authorization is only Rs. 1. That is permissible in terms of the court Fees Act, 1870. Therefore, there arises no question of any direction being issued with regard to the levy of court fee on authorizations like Ext. P 1.2. Therefore, none of the reliefs sought for in the O.P. could be granted and the O.P. had been rightly dismissed.3. The averments in the O.P. reveals that persons like the petitioner are asked that stamp duty required in terms of article 44 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 shall be affixed on such authorization. ...
Abdul Haque Vs. Pathumma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT980
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. One and the same person is the appellant. He is the second respondent in the respective Writ Petitions. He moved Ext.P1 petition before the State Election Commission to disqualify the writ petitioners, in terms of Section 3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The writ appellant and writ petitioners along with 12 others were elected to the Managing Committee of Kannamangalam Grama Panchayat. At the time of election there were two coalitions namely, Vikasana Munnani and Janakeeya Munnani. Political parties named Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) were constituents of the former. Certain other parties including Indian National Congress (I) (INC(I)) were the constituents of the latter. The political party named IUML fielded four candidates in its official Symbol and five independent candidates with different symbol. The writ appellant was as well as...
Chakkiath Engineering Works Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT494; (2008)11VST319(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P11 notice proposing penalty both issued under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The facts leading to the impugned order of assessment and notice are as follows: Pursuant to Ext.P2 agreement with a foreign party petitioner assembled ten chassis supplied by the foreign party in Semi Knocked Down Condition (SKD) and built bus body in Kerala and exported the buses to the same party. The terms agreed between the petitioner and the foreign party as evident from Ext.P2, on which respondents also have no controversy are the following. (1) The foreign party will ship the chassis of vehicle in Semi Knocked Down condition to India which will be cleared by the petitioner from customs on which no customs duty is payable as the goods are for export after body building. (2) The petitioner at his workshop in Kerala assembles the chassis, tests the same and th...
Vimal Arakkal Vs. Corporation of Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT413
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. Ext.P5 notice issued by the Corporation of Cochin dated 17.8.2004 has been subjected to challenge. The Corporation had noticed that an advertisement board erected in Sy.No. 34/1 of Ernakulam Village was unauthorised and since according to them it also posed a danger to the life and properties of general public, it was required to be removed. A deadline of three days had been given for such follow up action. In case of non-compliance, the Corporation was proposing to remove it at the risk and cost of the offenders. By virtue of the interlocutory orders passed, the operation of the order has been kept suspended. Reference had been made in Ext.P5 to an application submitted By the petitioner dated 5.3.2004, and it stood rejected thereby.2. Ext.P5 is addressed to M/s. Siyad Koker and Vimal Arakkal. Sri. Vimal Arakkal is the petitioner herein. According to him, he is running the business of putting up Hoardings as part of advertising and leasing it out to various part...
Ricetech Agro Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT403
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 sales tax assessment for 2000-2001 on the ground that it is against the charging Entry 9 of the Second Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act and hence without jurisdiction. In the normal course since there is a statutory appeal provided against assessment, this Court should not entertain challenge against assessment in writ proceedings. However, since petitioner's is a case of implementation of the rebate scheme under the charging Entry 9 of the Second Schedule and along with it grant of sales tax exemption under Ext.Pl certificate of exemption issued under Government notification and since the matter was argued on merits I proceed to dispose of the case on merits after hearing counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.2. The petitioner is a rice mill which is granted sales tax exemption on the sale of manufactured products namely, rice and rice bran from out of paddy which is the raw material. The sales tax exemption...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »