Kerala Court August 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.
State of Kerala Vs. Saj Flight Services (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT399; (2007)8VST148(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in these S.T. Rev. Cases filed by State is whether the Tribunal is right in holding that cooked food supplied or sold to Air Companies for service in Air Crafts is entitled to exemption under Notification SRO No. 1003/91 dated 1.8.1991. Relevant portion of the Notification is extracted hereunder for easy reference:SRO No. 1003/91- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act 15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods specified below payable by the persons or units with regard to their turnover, subject to the conditions and restrictions specified therein, namely:(1) Tax on the sale of cooked food including beverages not falling under Entry 7 6-A of the first Schedule to the said Act sold or served in ho...
Abdul Azeez Vs. Kerala State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ7
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are councillors of the Palakkad Municipal Council.2. The third respondent was elected as the Chairperson of the Municipality on 6-10-2005. He did not take oath consequent to such election. This and certain other matters, including the election of the Deputy Chairperson of the Municipality came up for consideration before this Court, ultimately leading to the judgment of the Division Bench in Balasubramanian v. Chandradas reported as : 2006(2)KLT467 , delivered on 22-3-2006.3. Among other things, the Division Bench, as per the aforesaid judgment, directed that fresh election be held to the post of the Chairperson. As a consequence, election was held on 24-5-2006. Respondents 3 and 4 were the candidates. The third respondent poled 20 votes and the fourth respondent poled 18 votes. Though the third respondent was declared elected as the Chairperson in the election held on 24-5-2006, he did not take oath as the Chairperso...
Nalini Vs. Deputy Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Ker)601; 2006(4)KarLJ87
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The decree holder in E.P. No. 493 of 1999 in L.A.R. No. 19 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur is the revision petitioner. The property owned by the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose. The petitioner claimed additional compensation. The matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Court. The Land Acquisition Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 493 of 1999 for realisation of the amount decreed. The requisitioning authority directly deposited an amount of Rs. 3,10,015/- on 16-08-2004, without deducting the income tax due from the total amount of compensation. Petitioner filed a cheque application and a cheque for Rs. 2,87,617/- was issued after deducting the amount of Rs. 22.398/- towards income tax. The Land Acquisition Officer filed an application to issue a cheque for Rs. 22,398/- for depositing the same as income tax. The petitioner objec...
P.J.A. Manoj Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST432(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Question raised in these connected cases is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining assessment of scrap materials under Section 5A, consumed in the production of lead. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. During hearing, counsel produced photographs and process chart involved in the recovery of lead metal from scrap. It is seen that main raw material is battery scrap wherefrom lead is recovered. In the course of use of battery, lead plates get corroded and fall to the bottom of the battery-shell. Petitioner in the factory, processes the scrap material and recovers lead by employing various processes to eliminate the wastes. It is seen that melting plant is also run by petitioner for melting the recovered lead and making it into ingots. From the purchase turnover and sales turnover, it is seen that substantial value addition is involved in recovery of the fine metal in ingot-form f...
J.i. Morrison (India) Limited Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2008)12VST440(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The two issues arising from the common order of the Tribunal are whether feeding bottle sold by the petitioner is 'packing material' within the meaning of Notification SRO No. 405/1994 prescribed under entry 91 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the alternate question that is, if item is found to be not packing material, whether it is a plastic item falling at the relevant time under entry 101 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act.2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader for the respondent. The Tribunal found that the item feeding bottle is not packing material and the same is assessable under entry 104 as a product made of plastic. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under the notification SRO No. 405 of 1994 bottles made of glass or any other materials are brought within the scope of packing materials and packing cases as referred to in entry 91 of the First Schedule to the KGST ...
Spl. Tahsildar Vs. Vasu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT557
Kurian Joseph, J.1. This appeal arises from the decree and judgment dated 30.3.1994 in O.S. No. 485/1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Appellants are defendants 1 and 2 and respondents are the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant respectively. The suit is one for declaration and injunction. According to the plaintiff he purchased the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 75,000/- by sale deed No. 806/1990 of Maradu Sub Registry from the 3rd defendant. He was served with revenue recovery notice dated 7.2.1992 calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest failing which the plaint schedule property would be proceeded against. The recovery is for realisation of customs penalty due from the 3rd defendant, the vendor. The appellants (defendants 1 and 2) contended that notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act had already been served on the defaulter, 3rd defendant, as early as on 19.8.1985 and hence the sale is hit by Section 44 o...
Highlands Tea Factory Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT194; (2009)20VST321(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming levy of tax under Section 5A of the KGST Act on purchase of green tea leaves by the petitioner used in the production of manufactured tea for export. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader.2. It is seen from the Tribunal's order that petitioner being a SSI unit is enjoying sales tax exemption. It is also entitled to the benefit of Explanation to charging entry 150(i) of the First Schedule to the Act, which is as follows:Where a tax has been levied in respect of manufactured tea, the tax, if any, levied and collected in respect of green tea leaves from which such manufactured tea is produced shall be refunded.Since tax was payable on local sales in auction and inter-State sale of manufactured tea, petitioner was granted exemption from purchase tax under Section 5A. Purchases are admittedly from unregistered dealers, namely, small growers and d...
State of Kerala Vs. Hotel Sabrina
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST262(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the sales tax revision case filed by the State is whether the Tribunal is right in granting exemption to the respondent-assessee on purchase turnover of goods consumed in preparation of cooked food for sale by them under Notification S.R.O. No. 363/92.2. Heard Special Government Pleader for the State and the counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.3. According to the State, exemption is granted only under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on purchase turnover of materials of use in the preparation of cooked food for sale in hotels and restaurants, other than bar attached hotels. In other words, the respondent-assessee being a bar attached hotel is not entitled to exemption is the case of the Department. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by both, we refer to notification, S.R.O. 363/92, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:S.R.O. No. 363/92.-In exercise of powers conferred by S...
Mare Steel Castings (P) Limited Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST109(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1.The questions raised in the two revisions filed by the very same petitioner is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment of steel castings under the category 'metallic products' under the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 at the rate of eight per cent. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is only a casting unit engaged in manufacture of steel castings, which are covered by entry 2(ii)(h) of the Second Schedule to the KGST Act and taxable at the rate of four per cent at the point of first sale in the State. During hearing counsel for the petitioner furnished copy of the leaflet containing product description of the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner is engaged in casting work and supply of steel castings, such as nozzle chest (turbine part), crane wheel, rope drums, throttle valve body, hydraulic cylinder with rubber moulding machinery, etc. Apart from producing the copy of the leaflet containing p...
Moideen Koya Vs. Sajeev
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT305
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/respondent No. 9 who was admittedly appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Engineer on 5.2.1996 has to face imminent reversion to his substantive post because of the impugned judgment. Therefore this appeal.2. He was a Second Grade Overseer. He is a graduate in Engineering. Regular appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer is governed by the Special Rules. It provides a ratio of 5:1:4; five direct recruits through Public Service Commission from open market; one direct recruit from engineering graduates in service in the category of Second Grade Overseers at the point of time when he was appointed so and at present from First Grade Overseer alone; and four by promotion of First Grade Overseer in the ratio of 3:1 between Diploma holders and Certificate holders.3. When there were no qualified hands, the petitioner working as a Second Grade Overseer was appointed on temporary basis invoking Rule 9(a) as Assistant Engineer. Later than that, the w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »