Kerala Court September 2008 Judgments

Cardamom Marketing Corporation Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)26VST519(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This revision petition relates to the assessment year 1991-92 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short).2. The petitioner is a firm, carrying on auction sale of cardamom brought by agriculturists and small traders. The assessee is also a dealer, registered both under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act', for short) and the CST Act.3. The original assessments under the provisions of the CST Act came to be completed by the assessing authority on March 3, 1994, granting exemption from payment of tax under the provisions of the CST Act, on the ground that the sales effected by the petitioner would come within the purview of Section 5(3) of the CST Act.4. Subsequently, the assessing authority, being of the opinion that the whole of the turnover of the dealer has escaped assessment to tax in the orders of assessment passed earlier, had initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 19(1) of...

M/S.Orma Marble Centre, Represented by Its Proprietor Vs. Sri.Anilkuma ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP No.17/04 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 3/10/03 the date of purchase of marble slabs till payment and also cost of Rs.2,500/- 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had approached the 1st opposite party for purchasing marble for the flooring of his house under construction. As the items at the showroom were not to the satisfaction of the complainant the fist opposite party advised him to visit their showroom at Thrissur where there are more varieties. Accordingly he went to the 2nd opposite party another showroom of the same group and as suggested by the salesman Sherin purchased Arna White marble at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. ft. and a sum of Rs.2000/- paid as advance. He purchased 2826. 85 sq.ft of above variety of marble for which the price worked out to Rs.1,67,000/-. The price was paid by cheque...

Yeses International Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ514; (2009)23VST130(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Both these revision petitions pertain to the assessment year 1996-97.2. S.T.Rev. No. 136/2005 is filed questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No.694 of 2001 dated 16.7.2004 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and S.T.Rev. No. 150 of 2005 is filed questioning the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 693 of 2001 dated 16.7.2004 under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.3. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act, for short) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1965 (the CST Act, for short). The petitioner is a dealer in superior kerosene oil having branch offices at Ernakulam and Pondicherry. Petitioner is borne on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle-III, Ernakulam. Petitioner used to import superior Kerosene oil from abroad under the import licence granted b...

The Trivandrum Golf Club Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ189

V. Giri, J.1. Common issues which arise for consideration in these cases, relate to the validity of the action taken by the Government in resuming possession of the properties being used by the Trivandrum Golf Club, as a Golf Course, along with buildings situate in the same property and being used by the Club as such for ancillary purposes. While the Irivandrum Golf Club (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), is the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 16393 and 16260 of 2008, two of the members of the Club are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 16363/08. The adjudication of the dispute raised in W.P.(C) No. 16393/08 would obviously govern the result of the other two cases also. Therefore, I will refer to the facts and contentions raised in W.P (C) No. 16393/08.2. An extent of 25.38 acres of land in Peroorkada village, situated at Kawdiar in the heart of Trivandrum City, is the subject matter of this litigation. The said extent of land originally belonged to the Maharaja of Travancore and app...

Universal Steel Corporation Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)19VST332(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. In all these revision petitions, the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry) in exercise of his powers under Section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Act, 1963'), and confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is called in question by the petitioner which is a partnership firm doing business in iron and steel at Coimbatore, State of Tamil Nadu.2. The questions of law raised for our consideration and decision is as under:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the penalty imposed considering the fact that the transaction in question is not a sale transaction and that there is no element of mens rea to attract penalty ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in sustaining the penalty imposed under Section 29A of the KGST Act upon the petiti...

Menon Laxmi Bhuvanendra Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ110

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The main point that arises for decision in this Writ Petition is whether the Government are bound to pay salary to a private college teacher, working in a post sanctioned by the University in disregard of binding statutory provisions.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioner is a Lecturer in Journalism, taking classes for B.A. Malayalam students in Farook College, Kozhikode. It is a College affiliated to the Calicut University. Initially, the College was conducting B.A. Course with Malayalam and Sociology as double main subjects (Pattern II). A proposal was mooted for bifurcation of that course into two degree courses, namely, B.A. Malayalam and B.A. Sociology, which was supported by the University as also the Government. The Government on the motion of the Calicut University, issued Ext. P1 communication dated 13-11-1990, permitting bifurcation of the double main course into two single main courses during the academic year 1990-91...

Malabar Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(134)ECC15; 2008(160)LC15(Kerala); 2008(230)ELT33(Ker)

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The Petitioner is a company, of which the Government of Kerala is the major share holder, engaged in the business of manufacture of cement. For the purpose of obtaining raw materials for the cement factory, the Petitioner was granted a lease of some vested forest in Walayar, from where raw materials are mined and transported to the factory premises through a rope way, which raw materials are used in the factory. At the time of starting of the factory, the Petitioner was obliged to obtain a licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and get a site plan of their premises approved by the Central Excise Authority. The Petitioner would contend that at that time the Petitioner submitted a site plan including the factory, the mines and the rope way, which site plan was approved by the Respondents. Later on, a question arose in respect of availing of MODVAT credit in respect of cement factories, as to whether inputs used in the mines are also eligible for MOD...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Settlement Commission (it and Wt)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(234)ELT584(Ker); [2009]176TAXMAN421(Ker)

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax challenges Ext. P3 order of the 1st respondent, Settlement Commission (IT & WT), in this writ petition. It is an order rejecting Exts. P2 and P2(A) applications filed by the petitioner for rectification of certain mistakes in Ext. P1 (A) order.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of Ext. P1 (A). The said portions of Ext. P1(A) are quoted below for convenient reference:7.1 Regarding Section 234A interest-Since there was no delay in the filing of the IT return for the assessment years 1991-92, 1994-95 and 1995-96, no interest under Section 234A would be chargeable for these assessment years. For the assessment year 1992-93, we hold that no interest under Section 234A is chargeable in respect of the period of delay of 4 months in the filing of the income-tax return, since there was a reasonable cause for this delay as the applicant had to face the action under Section 132 on 5-2-1992. However, for the assessment...

Mercy Rose and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker59; 2008(3)KLJ511

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The appellants in whose favour the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act granted a sum of Rs. 20,46,322/- as enhancement of compensation, have challenged the decision of the Land Acquisition Court in this appeal. The appeal is valued at Rs. 54,12,235/-. The court fee payable under Section 51 of the Kerala Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is shown as Rs. 2,93,915/ -. At the time of filing the appeal, only a sum of Rs. 10/- was paid as court fee. The Registry returned the appeal as defective on the ground of insufficiency of court fee.2. The appellants submitted that they have filed an application along with the appeal to allow them to set off the court fee payable in the appeal against the admitted compensation amount due from the Government as per the award under challenge passed by the Land Acquisition Court.3. The question to be decided at this stage is whether the appellants are entitled to claim such s...

Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ168; 2008(3)KLJ667

ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. The permissibility of drawing 'double presumption' under law arises for consideration in this case.2. The courts below concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the ft as alleged by the prosecution. The trial court sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years. The appellate court did not grant him any relief even in that regard. He has come up in revision. As the revision petitioner and Counsel remained absent at the time of hearing, I did not have the occasion to hear them. Hearing the parties/counsel in revision is also optional under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor.3. I have perused the records.4. The case was registered on the first information given by PW1 to the effect that on 25.10.1993 at about 6 a.m. while she was going for work, two persons came across her and snatched away her gold chains. She chased them but that was in vain. She reported the matter in the nearby house. PW11, the...