Kerala Court March 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
J and S Granites Company Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST424(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. What is the compounded rate of tax applicable to primary crushers in terms of the similarly worded Explanations occurring at the foot of Section 7(1) (b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter, 'the KGST Act', and Section 8(b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short, 'the KVAT Act' ?2. The petitioners have granite metal crushing units. They were assessed under the KGST Act till they came to be assessed under the KVAT Act from its introduction on April 1, 2005.3. On April 2, 2005, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued order No. C3.44514/04/CT, hereinafter, the 'Clarification' for short, under Section 59A of the KGST Act, clarifying that the rate of compounded tax of primary crusher is 50 per cent of the rate mentioned in section 7(1) (b) of that Act, depending on the size of the machinery. While that clarification held the field, on the premise that the assessing authorities are not complying with the statutory position ...
V. Varghese Vs. Sunny M.P. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2006ACJ2704; AIR2009Ker133; 2009(1)KLJ757
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He moved this Court by challenging Ext. P2 order dated 2-12-2008 in E.A. No. 13/2008 in E.P. No. 24/2006 in O.P(MV) No. 448/1996 of M.A.C.T., Pala.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The award in O.P. (MV) No.448/1996 has become final, as the appeal preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against it has already been dismissed by this court. The claimant moved for execution of the award. The Tribunal issued a certificate under Section 174 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the District Collector for recovery of the amount, invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act. While so, the appellant preferred Ext. P1 application in the execution Petition before the Tribunal, claiming mat he is entitled to the protection of Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. But, the Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that Revenue Recovery Certificate has already been issued to the Collector and theref...
Sreedhanya Construction Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Ker)573; [2009]18STJ171; 2009[14]STR738; [2009]22STT278; (2009)24VST456(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Prayers in the writ petition are as follows.(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ direction or order quashing Exts. P5, P7, P10, P11 and P12.(ii) To declare that the civil works maintenance of roads executed by the petitioner as per RMC 14, RMC 15, RMC 28, RMC 29 and RMC 38 in respect of Vizhinjani - Kattakada road, Varkala - Kallambalam road, Mavelikkara - Thiruvalla road, Kayamkulam - Mavelikkara road, Kidangara - Nerattupuram road, etc. are not taxable services under the Finance Act.(iii) To declare that the maintenance and repair of roads are not taxable services under the Head maintenance or repair of immovable property.(iv) To issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Exts. P5, P7, P10, P11 and P12.2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows.Petitioner is specialized in road works. The issue relates to the exigibility of the works undertaken by the petitioner to service tax. T...
Jindal Photo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST79(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed against annexure B order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The appellant, a dealer in photographic equipments, filed an application for clarification as to whether 'mini lab with it's accessories' sold by them answers the description of 'machinery for photography' covered by entry 83(60) of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act. The Commissioner clarified against the appellant holding that the products sold by the appellant are not photographic machinery inasmuch as the items are not used for taking photographs. It is this order produced as annexure B against which this appeal is filed. We have heard Sri K. I. Mayankutty Mather, counsel appearing for the appellant and Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The relevant entry of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act on which clarification is sought is the following:83(60) Machinery for photography2. The...
Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ707
Antony Dominic, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext. P3 and a declaration that Section 4(1) and 4(3) of the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968, (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') is unconstitutional and void, being ultra vires of Article 14, 25 and 26(b) of the Constitution is also sought for.2. First petitioner is the Vicar of St. Augustine's Forane Church, Ramapuram and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are its Trustees. Ext. P1 is a notification issued by the first respondent, in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act, giving notice of their intention to declare St. Mary's Church, St. Augustine's Church and the two storied building in which late Thoma Kathanar was residing, to be Protected Monuments for the purpose of the Act. By this notification the first respondent invited objections, to be addressed to the Secretary to Government, Cultural Affairs (B) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, objections were...
T.A. Jose and Company Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ1
Antony Dominic, J.1. The main prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts. P4, P7, P8 and P14 orders.2. Facts of the case are that, Ext.P1 is an order passed by the 3rd respondent, appointing the petitioner as the Authorised Wholesale Distributor at Mundoor and Kuttanelloor in Trissur District. However, this order was not implemented and seeking its implementation, petitioner filed O.P. No. 2072/97 before this Court by this time, Government policy had changed and as a result of which, the first respondent entrusted AWD-1 at Mundoor to a Co-operative Society and AWD No. 2 at Kuttanelloor, to the Kerala State Civil supplies Corporation. This arrangement, appears to have continued till 2004 when the Civil Supplies Corporation abandoned the distributorship and AWD entrusted to the Co-operative Society was suspended.3. At this stage, the petitioner herein filed WP(c). No. 14615/04, again claiming implementation of Ext.P1, appointing him as AWD at Mundoor and Kuttanelloor. In that Writ Pet...
Balakrishna Pillai G. Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ532
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The grievance exposed herein is against Exhibits P4 and P6 orders passed by the first respondent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Cashier in relaxation of the prescribed qualifications invoking power of the Board under Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (in short 'Rules') was turned down, mainly placing reliance on the Circular No. 22/89 issued by the first respondent, as per which the power exercisable by a Society under Rule 185(8) is stated as not exercisable in respect of the relaxation to the post like that of a Cashier.2. The claim is resisted by the first respondent by filing a counter affidavit, reiterating almost the stand as taken in Exhibit P4, while no counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent/Government as to the correctness or otherwise of the stand taken by the first respondent with regard to the correct Rule position.3. The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent ...
Vasantha A.K. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ654
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petition is the appellant and the respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether a claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R.) will be lost, if the claimant gets appointment in another school, though the said appointment was not approved by the competent authority for want of qualification and as a result, the incumbent was thrown out of that employment.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was duly qualified for appointment to the post of Upper Primary School Assistant (U.P.S.A.). The third respondent, who is the Manager of A.U.P.S, Padinjarathara, appoint the appellant in his School as U.P.S.A. in a leave vacancy on 5-6-2000. She was retrenched from service on the termination of the leave vacancy on 17-10-2000. The said appointment was duly approved by the second respondent Assistant Education Officer (A.E.O.), ...
Satheesh Kumar M. Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ789
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Both these writ petitions concern the same issues and therefore they are disposed of by a common judgment. Both petitioners were working as Assistant Devaswom Commissioners at the time of filing of the writ petitions. The reliefs sought for is to quash the order by which respondents 3 and 4 are assigned seniority over the petitioners. The said order is produced as Ext. P12 in Writ Petition No. 21062/2007 and Ext. P10 in the other writ petition.2. The relevant facts incelation to Writ Petition No. 21062/2007 are the following: The petitioner entered service as L.D. Clerk pursuant to Ext. P1 appointment order dated 27-7-1981. The next promotion is to the post of U.D. Clerk. The same depends upon passing Devaswom Officers' Test and Account Test (Lower). The petitioner passed Devaswom Officers' Test on 10-2-1983 and Account Test (Lower) on 4-5-1984.3. The petitioner in Writ Petitioner No. 34409/2007 entered service as a Lower Division Clerk on 26-10-1978 as evi...
State of Kerala Vs. Molly Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ415
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The tax revision cases are filed by the revenue challenging the orders of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed acceptance of books of accounts for sales tax assessments of the respondent assessee for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05.2. We have heard Special Govt. Pleader appearing for the State and Shri. Harisanker V. Menon for the respondent.3. The respondent commenced business in gold jewellery and in precious stones and diamonds in the year 2001 and continued the same without taking registration or making payment of sales tax. The clandestine business transactions carried on in the residential premises and in two business places were detected on search conducted by the inspection team. In the course of search, the search team examined the business slips, stock statements, note books, scribbling pads etc maintained by the assessee and estimated the purchase and sales during all the four years. It was noticed that the business tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›