Kerala Court July 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.
M.D. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST404(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Common question arising in all these three cases pertaining to the petitioner's sales tax assessments for the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, is whether the produce manufactured and sold by the petitioner, namely bleaching powder, is assessable as 'chemical' under entry 29 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, taxable at 10 per cent at the point of first sale in the State, or whether it falls under 'lime and dehydrated lime' taxable at the reduced rate of 2.5 per cent under entry 28 of the Second Schedule of Notification S.R.O. No. 1728/93 as claimed by the petitioner. We have heard Dr. K.B. Muhamed Kutty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of bleaching powder. The lion share of the production, according to the petitioner, was sold to Kerala Water Authority for treatment of water sup...
Annie George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST796(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The common questions arising in these connected tax revision cases are whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming denial of compounding facility to the petitioner to remit tax under Section 7(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the disallowance of second sale exemption claimed on granite chips and jelly and metals sold by petitioner and further, declining alternate claim of exemption under entry 33 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which among other items, provided exemption for 'crushed metals produced otherwise than by mechanised crushing'.2. Before proceeding to examine the main question, we reject the petitioner's claim for exemption under the Third Schedule because the petitioner was admittedly engaged in crushing stones by mechanical process which fact is self-evident from her claim f...
Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ240; 2006(3)KLT567
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. In State of Kerala v. Vishnu 2006 (1) KLT 445, a learned single Judge of this Court gave detailed general directions to be followed by the High Court and the criminal courts while filing criminal proceedings. In paragraph 34 of the judgment in Vishnu's case, the learned Judge gave the following directions:34. Though I am not cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, I am of the view that certain directions are to be issued to prevent such incidents in future. this Court and the Criminal Courts shall follow the following matters while filing the criminal proceedings.(i) Every pleader appearing for the accused or complainant shall file a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration specified in Rule 31 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. If the pleader is instructed by any person other than the accused,, his name and address shall be stated in the memo itself. If the pleader is appearing for more than one accused/complainant, such details in resp...
Caravan Softies Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT686; [2006]148STC393(Ker)
K.M.Joseph, J.1. Common question arises in these Revision Petitions and therefore, they are disposed of by a common Judgment.2. The question that is to be decided is whether ice cream manufactured by the petitioner and served to the customers in the petitioner's Ice Cream Parlour is exempt on the ground that it is cooked food. 'Cooked food' falls in Entry 12 of Schedule III of the KGST Act and it is exempt. Entry 12 reads as follows:12. Cooked food including coffee, tea and like articles served in a hotel, restaurant or any other place not falling under entry 40 of the First Schedule and when the turnover does not exceed Rs. 5 Lakhs.' The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also the Tribunal have found that Ice Cream is not 'cooked food'. In fact, the finding of the Tribunal is as follows:.According to the appellant, ice cream is a cooked food and the place where ice cream and fruit juice is supplied is a restaurant and hence they need to pay only the licence fee under Section 5(B) of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Outdoor Publicity
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Ker)428; [2008]296ITR520(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard senior counsel Sri P.K. Ravindranatha Menon, appearing for the appellant and Sri P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. Appeal arises from Annex. E order of the Tribunal sustaining cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the CIT(A). During the asst. yr. 1982-83, the assessee, which was carrying on business in advertising, took over a film produced by one of its partners, who later died. By the time the film was taken over by the firm, it had run a few months and proved that loss was inevitable. While completing the assessment of the firm, the AO found that the firm, by taking over the film only tried to reduce its tax liability and therefore disallowed the loss in film business and demanded tax. The assessment was sustained in first appeal and it is submitted by respondent's counsel that the order of the appellate authority was accepted and tax was paid by the assessee.2. After completion of the...
Abdurazak Vs. Moideenkutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT962
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The second respondent in Election (O.P.)No. 46 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Petitioner is the returned candidate from Ward No. 15 of Tanalur Grama Panchayath in the election held on 26-09-2005. Respondents were the other candidates who contested in the above election. The first respondent filed Election (O.P.) No. 46 of 2005 before the Munsiff Court, Tirur challenging the said election. Petitioner along with respondents 2 and 3 were named as the respondents in the Election O.P. The first date of hearing of the election petition was 8-12-2005. Petitioner entered appearance on that day. On 22-12-2005, the petitioner filed I.A.No.l of 2006 and gave notice as contemplated under Section 99 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (P.R.Act for short) to the court of his intention to give evidence to prove that the election of the first respondent would have been void if he had been a returned candidate. The applica...
Aysha Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker360; 2006(3)KarLJ1013
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner's husband K.A. Farooq was granted a permit to ply a stage carriage. With variations, granted and effected, that was renewed up to 17.4.2007, as evidenced by Ext.P1. With effect from 27.10.1989 that permit was transferred to the petitioner and issued for the vehicle KLS-399.2. Petitioner challenges the cancellation of the said permit as per Ext.P4 decision of the RTA and Ext.P6 order of the STAT confirming the said decision. She also seeks a declaration that non-replacement of vehicle is no ground for cancellation of permit under Section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Following the renewal of the permit, to be valid till 17-4-2007, the petitioner and her grandson submitted a joint application for transfer of permit to his name. That application was granted on 22-12-2003. Petitioner's grandson obtained a new stage carriage to replace vehicle KLS-399 hoping transfer of permit in his name. The sta...
SaifuddIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT873
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on a reference made by Justice K. Balakrishnan Nair after having noticed that the Full Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair v. Ram Mohan Nair 1998 (1) KIT 766 had not considered the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A .Nos. 1380 of 1994 and connected matters and also with regard to the interpretation of Clause (c) of Rule 8 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules and hence felt that an authoritative pronouncement is necessary on the scope of Clause (c) of Rule 8 of K.S. & S.S.R by a larger Bench.2. The Full Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair's case, 1998 (1) KLT 766 supra, has specifically considered the scope of Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 8 of the General Rules which enables a member of a service who is absent from duty in such service to return back to that service if he is not otherwise ineligible. The question as to whether such a person is eligible for appointment ...
Madras Cements Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Audit Assessment)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT626; [2006]147STC626(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions, except the petitioner in W.P.(C) 16114/2006, are manufacturers of cement. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 16114/2006 is a dealer in heavy vehicles. They have approached this Court, mainly, challenging Clause (ii) of Explanation 111 to Section 2(lii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. 2003. The said explanation has been introduced by an amendment (Act 39 of 2005) published on 28.8.2005 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The brief facts pertaining to each of the cases are summarised below:W.P.(C) 12809/20062. The petitioner is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a registered dealer under the K.V.A.T and C.S.T. Acts. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement in the southern States, including Kerala. The petitioner used to allow trade discount to the wholesale dealers and retail dealers, according to the practice, normally prevailing in the trade. The normal trade practice was to...
Muraleedharan Vs. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC613; 2006(3)KLT635
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. How unable should a wife be to maintain herself in order to entitle her to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this revision petition.2. The petitioner herein challenges an order passed under Section 125 CrPC directing him to pay maintenance to his wife/claimant @ Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence of the spouses consequent to strain in matrimony is not disputed. That the petitioner/husband is a business man having spent about two decades working abroad is also not seriously disputed, though there is a contention that his present business is not lucrative. The claimant/wife, aged about 39 years when she staked the claim is educationally qualified. She is a post graduate holding master's degree in arts. She is professionally qualified and is a law graduate. When they lived in matrimony, the claimant/wife was a house wife and had not pursued any career. She did not have ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »