Kerala Court February 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Shajilal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]320ITR489(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in all these appeals filed by the Revenue is whether the additional conveyance allowance granted by the LIC to Development Officers is exempt from tax under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as held by the lower authorities. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the Department and have perused the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority.2. This court had occasion to consider the issue in the context of challenge against deduction of tax on additional conveyance allowance in the decision in Franco John v. Union of India reported in : [2004] 269 ITR 441 (Ker), wherein it was held that reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred by employees towards conveyance expenditure is allowable deduction, whether it be granted as allowance or not. In all these cases, on facts we find that at least the first appellate authority found that the employer namely, LIC which is a statutory corporation under the Gov...

People's Council for Civil Rights Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1949

J.B. Koshy, Actg. C.J.1. These two writ petitions are filed as public interest litigation regarding granting of sanction for prosecuting the accused in the 'SNC Lavlin Scam' which is the biggest scandal that rocked this small but literate State of Kerala. It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the agreement executed between the Kerala State Electricity Board and SNC Lavlin, a Canadian Intermediary regarding renovation and modernisation of Pallivasal, Chengulam and Panniyar Hydro Electric projects, State has lost more than Rs. 500 crores and certain persons obtained material gains of Rs. 300 crores. Comptroller and Auditor General found out the great loss caused to the State. Sri. Balanandan Commission report also shows the irregularities in the above deal. State Vigilance also after investigation found grievous irregularities, corruption and toss to the State. But Vigilance enquiry pointed out more guilt on the officers rather than persons behind it. Petitioners approa...

S. Kumar Vs. Sudhakaran and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker170; 2009(2)KLJ298

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the defendant in a suit can invoke Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the suit, on the ground that the Execution Petition filed by him to execute the decree in his favour in the previously instituted suit is pending.2. The writ petitioner is the decree holder in O.S. No. 468 of 1972, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Neyyattinkara. The suit was for partition. Final decree was passed in favour of the writ petitioner. he filed Execution Petition. Amin was appointed to execute the decree. The respondents herein obstructed the Amin. They also filed a claim petition before the executing court which was later withdrawn. Thereafter, the respondents filed O.S. No. 580 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara for injunction and other reliefs. In O.S. No. 580 of 2008, the respondents contended that they were not parties to O.S. No. 468 of 1972 and that the suit was instituted since in exec...

Kanam Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)27VST172(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and sale of surgical gloves both sterilized and non-sterilized, examination gloves, etc. Since the products are made of rubber the petitioner filed sales tax returns declaring its turnover of surgical gloves as taxable at eight per cent under entry 145 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KG ST Act). This entry provides for tax on surgical equipment and instruments, medical implants and injection needles. However, since the product is made of 100 per cent natural rubber, the assessing officer assessed the turnover under entry 125 of the First Schedule to the Act which provides for tax at 12 per cent on all rubber products and products of a mixture of rubber and synthetic rubber. The appeals filed by the petitioner at two levels were unsuccessful and hence this revision petition is filed raising the question of rate of tax on surgical gloves and examination gloves.2. We have heard senio...

State of Kerala Vs. Kunhikannan Jewellery

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)28VST179(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Connected revision cases are filed by the State against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that respondent has no liability to pay purchase tax under Section 5A on the turnover of bullion purchased from non-resident Indians. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent.2. Non-residents are granted exemption on sales turnover of bullion under entry 10 of Schedule II of S.R.O. No. 1727 of 1993. However, in order to prove exemption the purchaser has to issue declaration in annexure I of the said notification. The respondent admittedly has not issued any declaration in annexure I in terms of the notification. However since the respondent did not produce any sale bills issued by non-resident Indians, the assessing officer levied tax under Section 5A treating the purchases as made in circumstances in which no tax is payable by the sellers. The Tribunal however held that since the respon...

Secretary and Financial Controller, Industrial Development Bank of Ind ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The case has been decided ex parte. It appears that the appellants/opposite parties has serious contentions. In the circumstance order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants remit a sum of Rs.2000/- before the Forum with notice to the complainant towards cost of the complainant. The amount can be withdrawn by the complainant. On remitting the amount of cost the Forum will reconsider the matter and dispose of the same on merits after hearing the opposite party also. The amount is to be deposited within 2 months from today. The office will forward this order to the Forum urgently. The matter stands before the Forum on 8.4.09....

State of Kerala Vs. Dr. George Jacob

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)26VST304(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in this revision filed by the State is whether the sales tax assessment of the respondent for the year 1998-99 completed on March 22, 2004 is barred by limitation or not. The Tribunal by relying on Section 17(6) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 held that since the time for completion of the assessment is four years from the end of the relevant year, the last date for completion of assessment for 1998-99 was March 31, 2003 and so much so, the Tribunal declared the assessment as time-barred and consequently invalid.2. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Ramadas, counsel appearing for the respondent. The Government Pleader has relied on annexure Al which is the proceedings issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on March 17, 2003 under Section 17(7) of the KGST Act extending the period for assessment for 1998-99 beyond March 31, 2003. According to the Government Pleader, by virtue ...

Smt. Pushapalatha, S. Vs. State Bank of Travancore and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker181

ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent. According to her, that was on the basis of a then available financial assistance scheme of the second respondent, Khadi and Village Industries Commission. She states that the second respondent recommended her application and forwarded it to the first respondent, Bank, however, that the bank did not duly honour its commitments and hence margin money and other amounts payable by the second respondent, Commission was not appropriately released.2. On default in repayment, the bank initiated action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, Sarfaesi Act). A notice under Section 13(2) was issued. The petitioner replied to that as per Ext. P11, stating that in view of the disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent regarding the total amount outstanding from her to bank, the parties have to go for arbitratio...

Ani G. and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ815

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Both the petitioners are working as Peons in the Health Services Department. Qualified Peons are entitled for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Health Inspector Gr. II in the department. The higher qualification required in the absence of technical qualification prescribed as item (ii) is Sanitary Inspector's Training Certificate (Diploma)/Health Inspectors Training Certificate. This was further amended by Ext. P2, providing that the technical qualification of diploma in Health Inspector Course will be treated as the qualification required.2. The question is whether petitioners who acquired the qualification by distance education are eligible to be considered to have satisfied the qualification prescribed in Ext. P2. The objection taken is that they have not availed any eligible leave for acquiring the said qualification and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court rep...

S. Shaffi Musaliar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]312ITR76(Ker)

J.B. Koshy, Actg. C.J.1. The predecessor in interest of the appellants was an assessee of the income-tax. He was doing the business of import and export of cashew. The assessment of income-tax for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1993-94 was completed and arrears with interest were due for payment. While demands were pending, the Central Government introduced a scheme called the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998' by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998 with a view to provide a chance to the assessee to pay off the arrears at a compounded rate with substantial concessions. It is contended that under the said scheme an assessee who is in arrears of tax, i.e., principal part of tax and interest and penalty as on March 31, 1998, would be able to settle the arrears by paying 35 per cent. of the tax only, to wipe off the whole liability under the heads of tax, interest and penalty. Similarly, an assessee who is in arrears of interest or penalty as on March 31, 1998, can settle the liabili...