Kerala Court November 2005 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.
Kulathunkal Motors Vs. Sales Tax Officers and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2005
Reported in: (2007)10VST195(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the sale of motor vehicles effected to defence personnel would amount to a sale through Canteen Stores Department so as to claim concessional rate of tax vide entry 6 of the Schedule III to S.R.O. No. 1091/99 is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. The petitioner in W.P.C. No. 25373 of 2004 has submitted its annual return showing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,36,95,585.67 and Rs. 19,82,95,785.91, respectively, for the year 2002-03. Scrutiny of the return revealed that the petitioner had, inter alia, claimed concessional rate of tax at the rate of six per cent on sale of motor vehicles vide entry 6 of Schedule III to S.R.O. No. 1091/99 on a turnover of Rs. 51,36,020.60 as against the Scheduled rate of 12 per cent. In support of the claim for concessional rate of tax, the assessee had filed photo copies of the certificates stated to have been issued from the Canteen Stores Department, in short, 'CSD'. Further the asse...
M.R.F. Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]148STC212(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash exhibit P9 notice and P13 letter and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner contrary to or inconsistent with exhibits P4 and P5 and also for other consequential reliefs.2. Exhibit P9 is a notice dated December 19, 2001, issued under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, in short, 'the KGST Act', proposing a total penalty of Rs. 49,39,45,410 stating that the assessee had failed to pay tax on the purchase turnover for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 on the ground that they were exempted turnover. S.R.O. No. 1729/93, it was pointed out, had allowed exemption only on the purchase value of rubber used and no exemption was allowed on the turnover of any processing of one form of goods into another form of the same goods by mixing with chemicals or gas fumigation ...
R.T.O. Vs. Bhaskar Salian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC746; 2006(2)KLT194
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether interstate stage carriage permit holders are liable to pay tax for standing passengers.2. Petitioners in the Original Petitions are inter-state stage carriage permit holders. Petitioner in O.P. No. 23838 of 2000 is the registered owner of stage carriage vehicle KA.19/4955 and holder of inter-state stage carriage permit on the route Mangalore-Kasargode. Permit was issued by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka and the permit was duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Kerala. First respondent issued demand notice on 3.7.2000 demanding arrears of tax to the tune of Rs. 8,640/- being the tax on the standing passengers for the period from April 1994 to March 1995 and from April 1995 to March 1996. Petitioner challenges the said demand on the ground that the permit issued to him does not permit carrying of standing passengers. Further it may also be stated that in the permit g...
Omana and ors. Vs. Sanalkumari and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC458
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 9 in C.C. No. 711 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Attingal. They seek to quash the entire proceedings in the above Calendar case.2. The above case was taken on file on the basis of Annexure A-1 complaint filed by the de facto complainant/first respondent herein. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with the first accused committed offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. As per the complaint, the marriage between the first accused and the first respondent was solemnised on 30.10.1995 at the Kadinamkulam S.N.D.P. Sakha Mandiram as per the customary rites of the community to which they belonged and the marriage was registered at the Kadinamkulam Panchayat. After the marriage, they lived together for about a month in the matrimonial house. It is further alleged in the complainant that the first accused then went to the Gulf country after lea...
Kamalasanan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT380
R. Basant, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the appellants who are accused 1 to 3 in a prosecution under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. All the three appellants (accused 1 to 3) were found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each. Accused 2 and 3 together had preferred Crl. A.No. 354/96. Thereafter, their counsel ceased to appear and a counsel on State Brief was requested to render legal assistance to the appellants. The 1st accused preferred Crl.A.No. 371/96 through prison authorities. He remained undefended. The same State Brief Counsel Smt. C.N. Usha was appointed on State Brief Counsel to render assistance for all the accused. She has advanced arguments on behalf of all the three appellants herein.2. The prosecution alleged that when P.W. 7 an Excise Inspector and his party were on routine patrol duty at ...
Aboosa Vs. Ashraf
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT282
J.M. James, J.1. The claim petitioners in E.A.No. 208/2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Varkala, who were the petitioners in I.A.No. 1642/2004, the petition to condone the delay, and the appellants in an unnumbered appeal which had accompanied I.A.No. 1642/2004, are the appellants before this Court.2. The facts revealed from the records are that, the appellants herein, are the wife and children of the 2nd respondent. Original Suit No. 210/1984 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Varkala, for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein, from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. It was decreed. However, the defendants, judgment debtors, trespassed into the plaint schedule property and the building therein. The decree holders in O.S.No. 210/1984 filed O.S.197/1990 before the same court, praying to recover the possession of the property scheduled therein. The same was decreed granting the prayer of recovery of possession as could be seen from the ju...
Shasthri Nagar Colony Welfare Committee Vs. Calicut Development Author ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker46; 2006(1)KLT294
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) 23174/20051. The petitioner, an Association of the residents of Shastri Nagar Colony, near Eranhipalam in Kozhikode, has filed this Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by the steps taken by the 1st respondent Calicut Development Authority, to sell 58 cents of open space in that colony, to the Lakshadweep Administration. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The 1st respondent acquired 13.09 acres of land and developed it into a housing colony and the members of the Association were sold plots, having various extents, as per Ext.P3 and similar sale deeds. In the said colony, two plots have been set apart as open spaces, having an extent of 42 cents and 58 cents respectively. Ext.P2, the approved lay out plan of the colony, would show that they are meant for parks, play ground and nursery school. The open space on the eastern side, which was set apart for parks and nursery school, is now presently used as a basket-ball court and play ground for chi...
Vasavan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1179; 2006(1)KLT52
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. These cases were referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge expressing a doubt whether petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') will lie in a proceeding exclusively triable by a Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:Saving of inherent power of High Court: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.The above section confers no new powers to the High Court. It merely safeguards all existing powers possessed by the High Court to secure ends of justice at the time of framing the Code as held by the Privy Council in Lala Jairam Das and Ors. v. Emperor (AIR (32) 1945 PC 94). The inherent powers of the Courts to do just...
Abraham Chacko Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT186
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1991-92 petitioner was assessed to tax. Petitioner returned the taxable turnover of Rs. 20,97,000/- and claimed exemption of the entire turnover as it related to arrack said to have been purchased within the State of Kerala. An inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner and based on which suppression was found on the basis of certain materials seized in the course of such inspection. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and assessments were completed which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in T.R.C. 185/2000. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated on 1st June, 2001 quashed the assessment regarding arrack. A copy of the said judgment is produced in this case as Ext.P1. Even though the petitioner was also a dealer in Cola and the assessment included the turnover representing the sale of such commodity as well, the assess...
Preme Vs. Ambujakshan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT905
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. O.S.No. 5/04 was filed before District Court contending that plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of a restaurant which serves food and beverages under the name and style 'Karimpunkala'. It was claimed that he was running the business and serving food and beverages in that name and style for the last several years and thereby acquired a good will and wide publicity and he is the owner of website www.Karimpumkala.com. It was also claimed that he participated in several food festivals and exhibitions and laurels and respondent is conducting toddy shop No. 22 on the side of M.C. Road, Kottayam and is passing off the food items in the name of Karimpumkala, after exhibiting the name Karimpumkala and respondent cannot be permitted to pass off the service in the trade mark of the petitioner. He sought a decree restraining respondent from using the name 'Karimpumkala'. Petitioner also contended that he had applied for registration of trade mark Karimpumkala before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »