Kerala Court December 2008 Judgments

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)24VST29(Ker)

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the KGST Act') confers power on the Government to grant exemption from payment of tax. In exercise of the said power, S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 was issued. It, inter alia, provided that there will be an exemption in the case of new industrial units under small-scale industries, and medium and large-scale industries for a period of seven years from the date of commencement of commercial production in respect of tax payable under the KGST Act on the turnover of sale of goods manufactured and sold within the State and on the turnover of goods taxable at the point of last purchase in the State, which are used for manufacturing other goods for sale within the State or inter-State. Exemption is also provided from payment of surcharge payable under Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 in relation to the goods mentioned in Sub-clause (a). The aggregate exemption in respect of sale...

W.H.D. 'Cruz and Sons Vs. the Board of Trustees of the Port of CochIn ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ176

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The validity of 'Scale of Rates and Statement of Conditions for the Levy of Charges' (hereinafter referred to as 'Scale of Rates') framed by the Cochin Port Trust is under challenge in these Writ Appeals (except W.A. No. 2022 of 2003) and the Original Petition. The Writ Appeals are filed by the respective writ petitioners Their contention is that the Scale of Rates framed under Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Major port Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the Scale of Rates is beyond the rule making power under Section 48, 49 and 50 of the Act. Since common questions are involved in all these Writ Appeals and the Original Petition, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Hereinafter the appellants as well as the writ petitioner are referred to as the petitioners. The petitioners except the petitioner in O.P. No. 11547 of 1992 (from which W.A. No. 2022 of 2003 aro...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Santhi Chitties P. Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]316ITR242(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 21 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, read with Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which disposed of an interest-tax appeal for the assessment year 2000-01. The High; Court Registry raised an objection regarding payment of court fee of Rs. 10 under Article 3(iii)(c) of Schedule II to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. The Registry had intimated the appellant that the minimum court fee payable in this case is Rs. 500.2. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and the Government pleader appearing for the state in this matter. We feel that the objection raised by the Registry is tenable because Article 3(iii)(c) of Schedule II to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and Rules provides as follows:From an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:(a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venad Conductors (P.) Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN295(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground that, the tax effect of the disputed issue involved is less than 2 lakhs. Even though the modified instruction in this regard is dated 24-10-2005 the standing counsel pointed out that as per CBDTs earlier Instruction No. 279/ 126/98-ITJ (Instruction No. 1979), dated 27-3-2000, the appeal filed by them before the Tribunal is maintainable because where Revenue Audit Objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, the matter should be contested irrespective of tax effect.In this case the question arising is whether the interest earned being interest on deposit is income from other source as against the treatment by the assessee as income from business. The issue raised is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Nanji Topanbhai & Co. v. Asstt. CIT : [2000]243ITR192(Ker) . In fact there are several decisions...

The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T. Thom ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/insurance company in OP.600/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay the insured sum of Rs.I,00,000/- with future interest at 14.5.% and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his son Xavior a member of Kerala Fishermen Welfare Board died on 7.1.97 when he went for fishing which was an accidental death . He was a member of the accident cum death insurance scheme sponsored by the opposite parties 2 and 3 ie. Matsya Fed. Although claim was presented the opposite party, Insurance Company did not settle the claim so far. 3. It is the contention of the 1st opposite party/appellant that the deceased was not a member of the scheme. According to them the opposite party/Matsya Fed did not furnish the list of members of primary Co-operative Societies to the appellant although list was asked for a number of times....

Ayoob Ismail Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ30

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the exoneration in departmental adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act ipso facto warrant or justify quashing of criminal prosecution against an indictee invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? This is the question which I am called upon to consider in this Crl.M.C.2. Petitioner faces indictment in C.C. No. 34 of 2005 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. That prosecution is under Section 135 of the Customs Act. There are 2 other accused in that case. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st accused was intercepted when he was in the process of an attempt to export foreign currency at the Airport. He was found to be in possession of foreign currency which he had not declared or could account for. When he was questioned and his statement was recorded, it appears that, he revealed that he had purchased the same from the petitioner herein. The petitioner's premises we...

Puthiyapurayil Moideenkutty and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ120

ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Petition for anticipatory bail.2. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused Nos. 6,7, 8,15,16,19 and 20), along with other persons (bout 50 persons in total), who are Muslim League workers formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with delay weapons, under the leadership of first accused, assaulted worker of CPI (M) (defacto complaint and others), using iron rod, reapers, stone etc. Dfacto complainant sustained a fracture to the leg, thereby.3. Learned Counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners are innocent of the allegation made and they are deliberately dragged into this case and falsely implicated under strong political influence. As per the allegations in the First Information Statement, mp overt act is attributed to petitioners and, they have not inflicted any injury on the defacto complainant is a fracture to his leg, and it was allegedly caused by pelting to stones by fifth accused, it is pointed out.4. Learned Counsel for petitioners also submitted th...

George Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ94

ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can a person to whom summons is issued by a Court be granted anticipatory bail?2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found in possession of 27 litres of Indian made foreign liquor for sale.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner received summons from the Magistrate Court in C.P. No. 42/2008. Petitioner apprehends that he may be remanded and hence this petition. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was absconding and he was not available for arrest and interrogation. He opposed this application.4. It is clear from the submissions made that though petitioner was absconding, court has chosen to issue only summons to him. Hence, there cannot be any reasonable apprehension of arrest of the accused. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked, only if a person has a reason to believe that he will be arrested o...

Shaji Philip Vs. Pallikkathodu Grama Panchayath,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLT14

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether a person who runs a piggery for the purpose of sale of pigs is liable to take out licence from the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (for short 'D & O Rules') or whether it is sufficient if he takes a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998 (for short 'Pigs and Dogs Rules').2. The petitioner started a pig farm in the year 2003 at Pallikkathodu, within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-Panchayat. Since, according to the petitioner, no licence was required for running a piggery at that time, no licence was taken. However, on a complaint from some persons, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to close down the piggery, even though the petitioner is stated to have complied with all the conditions prescribed by the Medical Office...

State of Kerala Vs. Millenium Polypackers

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLT49; (2009)24VST463(Ker)

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The Revenue calls in question the legality or otherwise of the order passed by Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T.A. No. 1022 of 2003 dated 29.7.2004. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Sate Government and has confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority in S.T.A. No. 363 of 2003 dated 25.6.2003.2. The Revenue has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are:i) Whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan's case reported in 20 STC 430.ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no manufacturing process involved in converting plastic tubes into plastic bags and covers?iii). Whether the process of converting the plastic tubes into plastic bags by the cutting and sealing machines and power amounts to manufacture?3....