Kerala Court November 2006 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.
Asianet Satellite Communications (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Sales Tax Off ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST615(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging revisional order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirming penalty levied under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 10(d) of the Act for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97. The facts leading to the case are as follows. The petitioner which is a reputed company engaged in telecast of TV programmes and cable networking issued C forms for the above four years and availed concessional rate of sales tax on inter-State purchase of dish antenna, battery, digitiser, etc., which are used in their cable TV network for transmitting TV signals to customers. The assessing officer found that the items purchased were neither used for manufacture of any goods nor for generation of power or for resale and therefore there was misuse of C form leading to loss of revenue. Since the action of the petitioner amounts to violation o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Janatha Steel Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC788; (2007)209CTR(Ker)262
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Even though several questions are raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal, we feel only two issues arise from the findings of the Tribunal. First one is with regard to the correctness of the rectification order issued by the AO under Section 154 of the Act by which the relief granted in the original assessment under Section 32AB of the IT Act was partly withdrawn excluding share income received from partnership firms. The second issue is on respondent's eligibility for deduction under Section 32AB on income received as shares from partnership firms.2. We have heard counsel appearing for both sides. The respondent-assessee besides being engaged in production of steel in their factory was a partner in three firms during the asst. yr. 1990-91. In the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the respondent-assessee was granted relief under Section 32AB at 20 per cent of the total income from business including th...
Saraswathi Abharanasala Vs. Corporation Bank and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: (2009)19VST73(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant approached this Court with the writ petition seeking a declaration that he would be liable to pay sales tax only at the rate of 0.5 per cent for the transaction he had with the first respondent/bank as reflected in exhibit P2 and seeking refund as tax has been collected at the rate of one per cent. He has also sought to quash exhibit P3 communication issued by the first respondent/bank rejecting his claim for refund on the basis of a letter of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes, which is produced by the first respondent as exhibit R1(B). The learned single judge after hearing both sides found that the dispute ought to have been resolved resorting to the provisions contained in Section 59A(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It is submitted by the appellant that the said provision is applicable only in respect of the dispute as to the rate of tax. As the rate of tax is finally notified in exhibit P1 at 0.5 per cent, ...
Paulson Vs. Asst. Excise Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ614; 2006(4)KLT965
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. An interesting question of law arising under the Abkari Act relating to confiscation of vehicles under Section 67B of the Act arises in this case. The question is whether a vehicle which was not actually used in carrying contraband liquor, but alleged to have been used for abetting the transport of contraband liquor in the sense that the vehicle was used for allowing the culprits to escape from the scene of occurrence, is liable to be confiscated under Section 67-B of the Abkari Act. The facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of this case may be summarised as under.2. On 25-7-1998, the Circle Inspector of Police, Chalakudy seized an Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No. KL-1l/B-4068 with 367 cases of illicit Indian Made Foreign Liquor. One person was arrested on the spot. Four others who were allegedly loading the liquor escaped in a Maruti Esteem Car parked near the place of occurrence of the abkari offence. The car did not have a registration number, b...
Girish Vs. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC690; 2007(1)KLT16
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.2. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the verdict of guilty, conviction, sentence, the direction to pay the compensation and the default sentence. Having gone though the concurrent judgments I reckon that as an informed, fair and reasonable stand. The impugned judgments are found to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable.3. Why then has the petitioner came to this Court? Learned Counsel for the petitioner submit...
K.G. Girish Kumar Vs. Muthoot Capital Service Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC167; 2007(1)KLJ161
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.2. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the verdict of guilty, conviction, sentence, the direction to pay the compensation and the default sentence. Having gone through the concurrent judgments I reckon that as an informed, fair and reasonable stand, the impugned judgments are found to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable.3. Why then has the petitioner come to this Court? Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits...
Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Ker)435
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The tax revision cases arise from the orders of the Tribunal disposing of appeals filed against agricultural income-tax assessments for 1987-88 and 1989-90. The first question raised is against assessment of miscellaneous income obtained on sale of unserviceable materials like containers, barrels, etc., sold by the petitioner. The AO held that the expenditure on purchase of various items were allowed as a deduction and the amount now received by the petitioner represents value received on sale of empty containers and similar items. Therefore, he held that petitioner's liability towards revenue expenditure for earning agricultural income gets reduced by the amount received by way of miscellaneous income. Accordingly, he set off such income against expenditure and allowed the net expenditure. The Tribunal confirmed this against which assessee has come up with this revision. Even though logically we agree with the reasoning of the AO confirmed by the Tribunal,...
Cepz Workers Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLJ39
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A Union of workers stated to be representing workers working in the Special Economic Zones in Kakkanad governed by the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 is the petitioner herein. The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 circular issued by the Development Commissioner appointed under the Special Economic Zones Act 2005, in respect of issue of photo security passes in the Cochin Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, and against the principles of natural justice. The contention of the petitioner is that the Development Commissioner has no power to issue a circular like Ext. P1. The petitioner would further submit that the Ext. P1 Rules governing issue of permanent photo security passes in CSEZ is patently arbitrary and against the basic rights of the workers who work inside the Zone. He also specifically points out some of the Clauses as arbitrary and affecting the workers working in the Zone and their right to engage themselves in...
Keltron Controls Division Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST90(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is an ailing public sector undertaking under the State Government. The sales tax revisions are filed against the Central sales tax assessment confirmed by the Tribunal for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Common question arising from the order of the Tribunal is whether the excess price later collected by the petitioner from the purchasers on account of exchange rate fluctuation and consequent variation in customs duty paid forms part of the price and consequently liable to be assessed as sales turnover. The admitted facts are that agreed price is linked to value of imported components and there is a price escalation clause, which entitles petitioner to recover differential exchange rate and to collect the consequent customs duty payable thereon. This presupposes that price in Indian rupee was fixed depending on the prevailing exchange rate and, in fact, the exchange rate fluctuates in favour of the purchasers, then petitioner would have had to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›