Kerala Court March 2009 Judgments

Joy Joseph Vs. the District Collector and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ276

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. This writ petition has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge, doubting the correctness of the decision in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala 2007 (4) KLT 149. Before referring to the legal question to be decided, we will first advert to the skeletal facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition.2. The petitioner constructed a residential building having a plinth area of 292.64 square metres. The construction was completed in 1996. The building tax leviable under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was assessed as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the Tahsildar, Meenachil. The said amount was paid by the petitioner.3. Later, the petitioner made an additional construction to the said building, having a plinth area of 20.77 square metres, making the total plinth area of the building to 313.41 square metres. Under Section 5(4) of the Act, building tax was again assessed and Ext.P4 notice...

Johnson and Johnson Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) an ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)23VST274(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Appeal is filed against clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The appellant among other things is a manufacturer and dealer in drugs and medicines. Even though an application for compounding was not filed in form ID, the appellant was remitting tax at the compounded rate, that is, at four per cent on the maximum retail price on the sale of drugs and medicines under Section 8(e) of the Act. When assessment was made the assessing officer applied the same rate of tax on MRP on medicines sold in other divisions of the company as well. The appellant's case is that only in the pharma division they have paid tax at compounded rate and so far as other divisions are concerned, drugs and medicines sold cannot be subjected to assessment at compounded rate under Section 8(e) of the Act. The appellant filed a clarification petition before the Commissioner, who held that the appellant is lia...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.P.N. Cashew Exporting Co.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN506(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the departmental appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in granting deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act in respect of sale proceeds of REP licence treating it as profit in export business. We have heard Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Balakrishnan appearing for the respondent-assessee. The assessee did not file any return voluntarily for the year 1994-95. However, against Section 148 notice, assessee filed return declaring a loss of Rs. 3,96,780. The Assessing Officer disallowed many items and along with it made an addition of Rs. 7.75 lakhs towards sale proceeds of REP licence. Even though loss return was converted into positive income and tax was demanded, the Assessing Officer declined relief under Section 80HHC for the reason that if 90 per cent of the sale proceeds of REP licence is reduced in the computation of profits of business in terms of Section 80HHC(4C) (baa), then the net result will b...

P.C.Vijay Vs. K. Gopinathan Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT: It is seen that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and without filing application to condone delay. Respondent/complainant has filed objection mentioning that the appeal has been filed without getting the delay condoned. We find that the order of the Forum is dated:8..4..2008. In the judgment produced by the appellant the date of the party receiving the order is seen mentioned as 23..10..2008. The date when the copy is ready is 17..5..2008. Evidently the appellant has gone to the Forum and obtained a copy belatedly. The appellant has filed the appeal concealing the above fact and got the appeal admitted. In the circumstances, as the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and without getting the delay condoned the appeal stands dismissed....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Ker)571; [2009]183TAXMAN257(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the appeal filed by the revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the first appellate authority granting additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant.3. The respondent is a public sector company under Central Government engaged in manufacture and sale of newsprint. The plant in respect of which additional depreciation is claimed is a de-inking plant in which pulp is made from waste paper. The relevant provision under which the claim was made is extracted hereunder for easy reference:(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2002, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant sh...

C.V.P.Realtors(P) Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director Mr.John.C ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.241/04 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to pay interest at the rate of 12% on Rs.12,00,000/- from the date of complaint till the date of review order dated 30.7.07 and thereafter at 10% per annum till delivery of possession of the flat and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2.The case of the complainant is against the 1st opposite party Managing Director of the firm of Builders and the 2nd opposite party Director of the Ist opposite party company the promotors of CVP Dimond Plaza a multi storied apartments. The complainant on 5.3.04 entered into an agreement with the 1st opposite party for the purchase of a flat therein ie. flat No.1/5 for a consideration of 12,00,000/-. The entire consideration was paid in advance. It is agreed to hand over the constructed flat on 30.6.04. On 2.7.04, 26.10.2004 and 3.11.2004 the complainant sent notices d...

Norka Roots Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Ker)484; [2009]183TAXMAN417(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Appellant is a Government of Kerala promoted company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act for taking care of the interest of the non-Resident Keralites. Registration of the company as a charitable institution was applied for under Section 12AA on 12-4-2004. On rejection of the application on 7-3-2005, appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner on 5-5-2006. However, fresh order was issued by the Commissioner on 6-2-2007 which was again appealed against before the Tribunal. The assessee contended that the order passed by the Commissioner is beyond the period of limitation, and so much so, they are entitled to be treated as registered under Section 12AA(2) of the Act. The Tribunal however held that limitation is saved by operation of Section 153(2A) of the Act and so much so the assessee's claim for deemed grant of registration is not tenable. On merits. Tribunal decide...

M/S Maxim Mobiles and Another Vs. K.K. Rajan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appeal is directed against the judgment of CDRF, Thrissur in CC.785/2007. The appellant has been directed to deliver Mahindra Alpha three wheeler for a sum of Rs.5999/-. The price of the vehicle is Rs.1,26,500/-. It is submitted by the appellant that amount of Rs.5999/- as advertised represented the initial payment less special discount of Rs.1000/- and the first EMI of Rs.1000/-, Rs.1500/- towards documentation expenses. No evidence is seen adduced. No documents are marked. The Forum has perused the advertisement produced and held that it was unfair trade practice to put a star mark and mention the conditions below in the advertisement in small letters. We find that whatever may be the nature of the advertisement, directing to deliver the vehicle for such a low price appears absurd. The Forum could have awarded compensation after hearing opposite party as well. In the circumstance the order of the Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted...

Velayudhan P.T. Vs. U.S. Santhosh Kumar and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ308

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. A tenant against whom order of eviction under Sub-section 8 of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 has been concurrently passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority is the revision petitioner. The petition schedule building is portion of larger building and admittedly the first respondent/landlord is in occupation of certain portions of the said building and is conducting hotel business in those portions by the name 'Lunch House'.2. The need projected by the landlord was that there is no sufficient convenience in the rooms under his occupation, for him to conduct the lunch house business and to accommodate the customers who are coming to take lunch. According to the landlord, there is necessity to expand the hotel business and for that, sufficient convenience is to be arranged for storage of food materials, fire wood etc. etc. The landlord has simultaneously instituted petitions for eviction on the same grou...

M.V. Raghavan and ors. Vs. the Returning Officer and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ801

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed against the common judgment in W.P. (C) Nos. 28311,28769,28863 & 29510/2007. The Writ Petitions were filed, challenging the election to the Managing Committee of the Kerala State Co-operative Hospital Complex and Centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd. No. 4386, Pariyaram, Kannur, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). The Society has individual members and institutional members. W.P. (C) No. 28311/2007 was filed by four candidates, who contested the election W.P. (C) No. 28769/2007 was filed by four other candidates at the election. W.P. (C) No. 28863/2007 was filed by individual members of the Society. W.P. (C) No. 29510/2007 was filed by three institutional members of the Society through their delegates. All the Writ Petitions were heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 11-4-2008. Hence these Writ A...