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.
P. Narendra Menon Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2009)23VST66(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the revision is whether the Tribunal is right in confirming the assessment disallowing concessional rate of sales tax at five per cent under Notification S.R.O. No. 1091/99 on sale of rubber gloves by the petitioner to Cochin Refineries Limited. During the year 2000-01 the petitioner sold rubber gloves to Cochin Refineries Limited charging concessional rate of tax at five per cent against declaration issued by the purchaser in the prescribed form at annexure I to the notification. All the three authorities including the Tribunal declined the benefit to the petitioner for the reason that the item sold is not consumed in manufacture of products by the purchasing dealer, namely, Cochin Refineries Limited. Therefore the question involved is whether consumption in manufacture of only the item sold will entitle the selling dealer for concessional rate of tax under the notification. Item 3 of Schedule III of the Notification entitles the dea...
Sasidharan Pillai Vs. the Secretary, Thamarakkulam Grama Panchayat and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLJ45
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. A person who is in possession of shop room bearing No. III/173 within the limits of the Thamarakkulam Panchayat is the writ petitioner in both these Writ Petitions. W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006 is filed arraying the Secretary of the Panchayat as the 1st respondent; owners (being husband and wife) of shop room No. III/173 as respondents 2 and 3 and the owner of an adjacent shop room as the 4th respondent. The case projected by the writ petitioner is that a Vydyasala is being conducted in the shop room and that the shop room itself was constructed by the petitioner's grandfather on the strength of the lease of land given to the grandfather by the then owner one Alex in February, 1965. The petitioner came to have occupation of the room and the business in 1967. In 1991, on the basis of an oral agreement between the land-owner Sri. Alex and the petitioner, it was agreed that ownership over the land will be conveyed to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the...
Keerthi Liquors Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST336(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the tax revision is whether the petitioner, an arrack dealer, who paid sales tax at the compounded rate under Section 7(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, is entitled to exemption on turnover tax under annexure D notification, namely S.R.O. No. 1401 of 1992. The Tribunal following the decision of this Court in Parakkattil Aleyamma v. Sales Tax Officer [1993] 91 STC 518 : [1993] 1 KLT 810 reversed the appellate authority's order in favour of the petitioner, and held that the petitioner is liable to pay turnover tax on the sales turnover of arrack during the year 1992-93. Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 which was made effective from April 1, 1992 after retaining turnover tax at all points on items like, petrol, foreign liquor, etc., provided that items not mentioned in Sub-clauses (a) to (f) of the notification and falling under the First or Fifth Schedule will be exempt from turnover tax, except the commodities that are bro...
Venkatadeswara Enterprises Vs. Rajasekharan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1626; 2006(3)KLT930
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. When does a trial of a criminal case terminates? Whether the trial ends when a criminal case is posted for judgment? Whether a Magistrate is competent to invoke power under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure after arguments were heard and case is posted for judgment and before the judgment is pronounced? These are questions to be answered.2. A learned Single Judge of This court in Sajeendran v. Thalakulathoor Grama Panchayat 2004 (1) KLT 69 finding that case was posted for judgment by the Magistrate and application filed by the complainant under Section 311 of the Code was thereafter allowed by the Magistrate held that trial of the case was terminated when the case was posted for judgment and consequently power under Section 311 of the Code cannot be invoked by the Magistrate. Following the same principle the same learned Single Judge in Joseph P.T. v. K.K. Rajappan and Anr. 2003 (3) KLT SN 175 : 2004 (1) KLJ (NOC) 12 held that as the case was only po...
K.O. Khona and Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST92(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming levy of turnover tax on petitioner on the sales turnover of tea. Petitioner's case is that petitioner has admittedly purchased tea in Cochin auction conducted by tea auctioneers and according to petitioner, the tea auctioneers are second dealers selling tea liable to pay turnover tax and the petitioner being third seller is not liable to pay turnover tax. However, all the authorities including the Tribunal found that there was no sale between the tea planter who entrusted the tea to the auctioneer for sale and the auctioneer's sale being first sale, the petitioner's is the second sale and hence liable. Turnover tax on tea was payable during the relevant year at the point of second sale in the State as mandated under Section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 read with Government Notification S.R.O. No. 362 of 1992.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended th...
St. Mary of Leuca English Medium School Vs. Dy. Director
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT760
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 demand of property tax by the second respondent in respect of a school building after declining exemption claimed by the petitioner under Section 207(1)(c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 vide Exts.P3 and P5. Even though there is no response from the second respondent, the Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent argued covering the entire issue raised by the petitioner. The school run by the petitioner is following CBSE syllabus. The school buildings are located in two Panchayats and it is seen from Ext.P4 that only one Panchayat has demanded building tax in respect of the school buildings after declining exemption vide exhibits above referred.2. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P1 and contended that petitioner being a recognised school is entitled to exemption from property tax in respect of school, buildings underS.207(1)(c) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Government Pleader on the other hand contend...
KamaruddIn Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT188
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner was elected as a Councillor of the third respondent Municipality. He was thereafter, elected as the Vice Chairman.2. On 9-12-2004, the respondent, being the officer authorised by the first respondent State Election Commission for the purpose of Section 19(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', received a written notice of the intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner. The second respondent issued notice convening a meeting on 20.12.2004 under Sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the Act for consideration of the motion. Petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 36477/2004 seeking to quash the said notice on ground that it is in violation of the statutory provisions in Section 19(3) of the Act. On behalf of the second respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the said Writ Petition, it was admitted that the notice convening the meeting on 20.12.2004 was served on the petitioner on...
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT235; (2007)8VST604(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Malayala Manorama Company Limited a Company engaged in the business of printing and publishing of daily newspaper and other publications is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'KGST Act') and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CST Act' ). The Company has established printing units at different places in and outside the State of Kerala. Printing of newspaper is carried on by sophisticated and expensive machinery and facilities employing large number of employees in the several industrial units at nine places in the State of Kerala.2. Petitioner for the purpose of printing newspaper and other publications used to purchase printing ink, which is an essential industrial raw material. Section 5(3) of the KGST Act provides for a reduced rate of tax at 3% payable by the dealer in respect of sale of raw materials when sold to any industrial unit for use in the production of finished products in the State for sale. According ...
Suseela Nair Vs. Sub Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT768
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P8 series of three demand notices issued by the 2nd respondent demanding difference in stamp duty in respect of three items of property purchased by the petitioner vide Exts. P1 to P4.2. Petitioner has produced Ext. P1 order of the District Court approving sale of the entire property that was purchased by the petitioner at the declared price as the sale was on behalf of the minor which required clearance from the court. It is seen from Ext. P1 order of the District Court that simultanously the guardian of the minor re-invested the sale proceeds in the purchase of another item of property which is also approved by the court by the very same order. Counsel for petitioner contended that when the market value of the property sold by the seller is approved by the District Court, though not under the Stamp Act, the same will bind the 2nd respondent.3. Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that Ext.P1 should be looked into...
George Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT452
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The Writ Petitioner is the President of the third respondent Block Panchayat. He challenges Clauses 6 & 7 of Ext. P2 as ultra vires Section 162(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. A declaration is also sought that Clause 23 of Ext. P2 is ultra vires Section 162(3) of the Act. The further prayers are to quash Ext. P4 and to declare that the decision taken in Ext. P1 is legal.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat determined the number of Members to its Standing Committees vide Ext. P1. Ext. P3 is a notice issued by the petitioner for convening a meeting to conduct election of Members to the three Standing Committees on 5.11.2005. By Ext. P4, however, the second respondent issued notice to the Secretary of the Panchayat for determining the number of Members of each Standing Committee in accordance with Ext. P2 Circular.3. The petitioner premises his case on Section 162(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It reads as follows:Every Standing Committee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »