Kerala Court October 2008 Judgments

J and J Timbers Vs. Intelligence Officer (ib), Investigation Branch, D ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)21VST377(Ker)

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned single judge in W.P. (C) No. 26857 of 2008 dated September 16, 2008 Se para 379 supra. By the impugned order the learned single judge has rejected the writ petition.2. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has called in question exhibits P4 and P7 notices issued by the first respondent, Intelligence Officer (IB), Investigation Branch, Department of Commercial Taxes, Kollam, in exercise of the powers under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for brevity and convenience, hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1963').3. The subject-matter of exhibit P4 notice is evasion of tax by the petitioner by making bogus claim of sale of timber at concessional rate without any actual sale of timber to the form 18 suppliers, M/s. J and Timbers, Chalakudy, and the penalty proposed for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05. In the lengthy notice issued, the Intelligence Officer has narrated in detai...

infopark Kerala Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Tds)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN1(Ker)

K.M. Joseph, J.1. The question that falls for decision is the scope of Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows:194LA. Payment of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property.--Any person responsible for paying to a resident any sum, being in the nature of compensation or the enhanced compensation or the consideration or the enhanced consideration on account of compulsory acquisition, under any law for the time being in force, of any immovable property (other than agricultural land), shall, at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to ten per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon.Petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P4. Ext. P4 is issued to the CEO of the petitioner advising the petitioner to take immediate steps to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions for deduction of tax at source and remittance of the same to the Government account.2. Petit...

Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.J. Biju and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party (Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The appellant and the second opposite party, the Proprietor of the Margin Free Market are under orders to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and also to pay Rs.38.96/- the price of the commodity with interest at 12% from the date of purchase ie. on 27.1.01 till payment and also cost of Rs.1000/-. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased 1.5 litre bottle of Coca-cola from the second opposite party on payment of Rs.38.96. He brought the same and went his house. He found that the bottle contained rotten decomposed foreign body inside. Hence, he did not open the bottle. Lawyer notice was issued. But no reply received. The first opposite party filed version denying the purchase from the second opposite party. It is also contended that the material has not been subjected to any test by the appropriate laboratory. It is also contended that the complainant ought t...

Peringottukara Finance and Investments Co. Vs. Harikumar C. and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ655

ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant who suffered concurrent decrees passed by the courts below is the revision petitioner. The parties herein are referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as in the suit.2. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 as guarantors availed a business loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the branch of the plaintiff company and executed a Promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 21 % per annum with quarterly rests. Out of the three defendants, defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte. The 1st defendant who contested the suit interalia contended that no loan was sanctioned to him as alleged in the plaint, that in fact the 1st defendant had some earlier financial transactions with the plaintiff company for which the 2nd and 3rd defendants stood as guarantors. It is also contended that for the said purpose defendants were asked to affix their signatures on unfilled printed form of a promi...

Managing Director, Suhail Man Power Consultants Vs. Sabeel Subair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from 28..2..2003, the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties agreed to provide him a job as a security personnel in Kuwait and a sum of Rs.15,000/- was demanded towards the air ticket charges. The amount was paid and receipt was obtained on 28..2..2003. Subsequently the opposite party collected the passport saying that the visa is ready. But the visa was not given and the amount was not repaid and the passport was not returned. 3. According to the opposite party the passport and a sum of Rs.14,000/- was returned. But visa could not be used as the passport was not handed over in time. There was dispute with respect to Rs.1000/- retained as service charges. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and E...