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.
Subramanyan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT125
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These Revision Cases filed under Section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise from the common order of the Tribunal, confirming denial of exemption from liability to pay agricultural income tax to the petitioner/assessee for the four assessment years 1996-96, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Petitioner has a total extent of 8 acres of land out of which only 7 acres are cultivated and so much so, petitioner is completely exempted from payment of agricultural income tax, under proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act, is the case of petitioner. However, the authorities below including the Tribunal held that the holding limit for getting exemption from agricultural income tax during the relevant years is 3 hectares and since the petitioner has a total holding of more than 3 hectares, he is liable to pay tax.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, we have to refer to the relevant provision of the Sta...
State of Kerala Vs. K.P. Thankappan Nadar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLJ69; (2007)9VST569(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The question involved in these tax revision cases is whether nylon fishing net fabric is liable to be assessed under entry 129 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 up to April 1,1992 and thereafter under entry 89 of the First Schedule or whether the item is entitled to exemption under entry 7 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act which entry was later renumbered as entry 11 of the very same Third Schedule. Different Benches of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal decided the appeals differently, some granting exemption, while the others declining exemption holding that the item comes under the above entries of the First Schedule to the Act. Therefore, tax revisions are filed challenging the orders of the Tribunals both by the State as well as by the assessees. We have heard various counsel appearing for the assessees and Government Pleader appearing for the State.2. On going through the Tribunal's orders, we find the Tribunals have r...
Khader Spinners Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST565(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These connected S.T. Revs., arise from a common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of sales tax exemption claimed under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1995-96, except 1994-95, in respect of purchase of raw hides and skins for export after dressing it in tannery. The petitioner is engaged in the purchase of raw hides and skins from various centres in Kerala and also from other States. The raw hides and skins purchased are transported outside Kerala to Dindigul in Tamil Nadu where the raw hides and skins are processed in the tannery and exported against purchase orders. According to the petitioner, the items are mostly exported and, therefore, the entire purchases are entitled to exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. The question raised and considered before the Tribunal is whether there is manufacturing or processing of raw hides and skins to produce tanned and dressed...
Savithry Amma Vs. Jayachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT338
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 653/2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration and for fixation of boundary. Plaintiff claimed ownership over B schedule property. Plaint C schedule property is described as part of plaint B schedule property. The defendant is the owner of the property adjoining A schedule property. It was alleged that he attempted to tresspass into the plaint C schedule property. Plaintiff valued the subject matter of the suit as Rs. 16,000/- and calculated the Court fee payable as Rs. 680/-. At the time of institution of suit, he paid an amount of Rs. 68/- as Court fee. There was dispute regarding the valuation of the subject matter of this suit.2. On 11.11.2005, the Court below heard the issue regarding valuation. The plaintiff filed I.A. 10081/2005 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to amend the valuation showing the total value of the subj...
State of Kerala Vs. Sterling Farm Research Service (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST658(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the Depart-mental revision case is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding claim of sales tax exemption on the respondent's product marketed in the name 'Neopeat'. The counsel for respondent produced a sample copy of the product which is made of coir pith or coir fibre dust with short length fibres. In the course of defibreing coir pulp, substantial quantity of dust or coir pith is obtained. Long length fibres are recovered and the dust with broken fibre pieces are bonded together and marketed by the respondent under the brand name 'Neopeat'. The Coir Board certified the product as coir pith coming under entry 17 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and based on it, respondent claimed exemption from sales tax, which was declined. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim of exemption based on the certificate issued by the Coir Board.2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing...
Laya Vs. Sumesh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT517
K.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The relief sought for by the de facto complainant in C.C.No.1883/2002 with respect to the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. is an order directing the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam to stay the above proceedings in exercise of the power under Section 309 Cr.P.C. till the disposal of the civil disputes in the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P. No. 114/2003 & O.P. No. 115/2003. The proceedings initiated by the petitioner pending before the Family Court are with respect to dissolution of marriage and realisation of money and gold ornaments respectively. The O.Ps. before the Family Court are being tried jointly and the matter is in the process of trial arid some of the witnesses have been examined. The petitioner moved the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to stay the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the above matters in the Family Court, but was bluntly turned down as per order in M.P. No. 1125/2005 on the ground that it appeared th...
Tomy Peter Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT880
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner challenges Ext.P8, a composite notice issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Ext.P10 declaration made under Section 4(1) of the said Act, to the extent it relates to the petitioner's property and his building thereon alleging that they are issued in violation of the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (hereinafter, 'DTP Scheme', for short) and Plan. He also seeks a declaration that the proposed widening of the Sahodaran Ayyappan Road ('SA Road', for short) , by respondents 4 to 6, by resorting to the Land Acquisition Act, should only be in consonance with the DTP Scheme as sanctioned by the first respondent State as per Ext.P6 order. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought for to ensure prevention of respondents 4 to 6 from acquiring any portion of the petitioner's property or demolishing his building either in part or full for widening the SA Road, except in accordance with the DTP Scheme and Plan sanc...
Balakrishnan Vs. Spl. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ1000
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P6, a decision by the respondent-an officer exercising powers of Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act).3. Petitioner's land was acquired under the Act. An award was passed by the Court in relation to certain lands covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The land value was increased. The petitioner, accordingly, invoked Section 28A of the Act relying on the said award of the Court and sought that the amount of compensation payable to him may be predetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court.4. By the impugned Ext.P6, the respondent found that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Act is within time, but that the copy of the award produced along with the application is not one applied for and obtained by the petitioner o...
West Quilon Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT950
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant Co-operative Society could not succeed in O.P. No. 21569/04, wherein it challenged Exts. P-3 and P-5 orders. Therefore, this Writ Appeal.2. The grievance of the appellant is that by Ext. P-3 order, the Joint Registrar had granted exemption from the requisite qualification to the 3rd respondent, long after his retirement and directed the appellant to pay the benefits arising out of retrospective promotion, for which he became eligible after giving exemption from qualification. Further contention is that Government also, in appeal against Ext. P-3, while passing Ext. P-5 did not advert to this aspect. It is, while rejecting the challenge against Exts. P-3 and P-5, the incompetency of the Joint Registrar to grant exemption to an employee in terms of Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969.3. The facts, in short, for disposal of this appeal are as follows:4. The 3rd respondent was an Assistant Secretary in the service of the appell...
Haleema Zubair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT232; (2009)19VST138(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is a dealer in ceramic tiles, who, during the accounting year 1998-99, accounted receipt of Rs.45,80,168/- towards service charges and commission received and claimed exemption, on the same on the ground that the same does not represent sales turn over of goods. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment directed the petitioner to produce documentary evidence towards proof of nature of receipt claimed as commission and service charges. Even though the petitioner produced some letters of parties pertaining to the relevant year and subsequent year, petitioner could not prove the payments received from another concern M/s. Poseidon Food Company, which is also another arm of the petitioner. Since petitioner did not establish the nature of exemption, the Assessing Officer treated the same as sales turn over of the same company and levied tax. Petitioner filed first appeal and the appellate authority deleted the addition on the ground that the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »