Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

Aby Engineers and Consultants (P) Ltd., Vs. Sales Tax Officer (Reserve ...

Court: Kerala

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to legality and correctness of penalty imposed under Section 45A(c) and (g) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act). The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Act, has failed to file monthly return and to pay the tax due with respect to the month of July 1998, which was due on 15.8.1998. Pursuant to this the 1st respondent conducted a shop inspection on 18.9.1998 and information gathered on such inspection revealed that the petitioner had effected sale of Kerosene from 1.7.1998 to 14.7.1998 to the tune of Rs. 43,02,900/- and collected a sum of Rs. 2,04,900/- by way of sales tax. Alleging that there is violation of Section 17(1) of the Act read with Rule 21(7) of the KGST Rules, imposition of penalty was proposed against the petitioner alleging offences under Clause (c) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 45A of the Act. Immediately on receipt of the proposal notice, the petitioner had remitted tax a...

Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Vs. MartIn and Harris Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT458

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The short question raised in the Writ Appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellant to consider grant of Amnesty benefit to the respondent for settling the arrears of tax due for the year 1995-1996.2. We have heard the Special Government Pleader appearing on the behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.3. The contention raised by the Special Government Pleader is that the respondent has violated conditions of grant of Amnesty in as much as they have not paid the arrears of tax in terms of Sub-clause (4) of Section 23B of the K.G.S.T. Act, and so much so, the benefit granted was withdrawn under Sub-clause (5). The learned Judge, however, allowed the claim because respondent's application for rectification of assessment was pending, when the application for Amnesty was filed.4. Counsel for the respondent-assessee contended that rectification sought was in regard to short credit...

P.K. Vijaya, Akhil Furniture Works Vs. Intelligence Officer-1 and

Court: Kerala

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. Ext.P10 to P12 orders imposing penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) are under challenge in this writ petition. Assessments of the petitioner, who is a registered dealer, with respect to the years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 were completed on 3.9.2003, 11.9.2003 and 11.9.2003 respectively, as evidenced from Ext.P1 to P3. Pursuant to a search conducted on 1.10.2004 by the intelligence squad of the Commercial Tax Department at the residence of one Sri Jimson George, who admittedly was working as Accountant in the petitioner's concern, Ext.P4 to P6 notices were issued proposing to impose penalty on the petitioner, under Section 45A of the KGST Act, alleging that the Bank transactions unearthed from the Passbooks recovered pertains to purchases and sales suppressed by the petitioner. Penalty was proposed treating the amounts credited to the Bank accounts as income received from unaccounted sales and the amounts debited as u...

Reena Vs. Geena

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT155

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The first respondent herein was the Writ Petitioner. A vacancy of High School Assistant (HSA) (Hindi) arose in the 5th respondent's school on 5.6.2002, on the re-opening day of the school in the academic year 2002-2003. The appellant was a claimant for the post under Rule 43 of Chap. XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'KER') whereas the first respondent/Writ Petitioner was a claimant under Rule 51-A. The first respondent had worked as HSA (Hindi) from 14.7.2000 to 29.9.2000. The said appointment was approved also. The appellant has approved service as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) since 1.8.2000.2. The Manager of the School from among the two rivals, preferred the first respondent and appointed her as HSA (Hindi) with effect from 5.6.2002. The said appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer. The appellant challenged that appointment and its approval before the Di...

N. Mukundakumar, Asst.Engineer, Kseb,section Office and Others Vs. Joh ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.228/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.4950/- and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards expenses and compensation and also 2,000/- towards costs with interest at 12% the amount is not paid within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is running a Studio in Moolamattom and was regularly remitting energy charges under VII B tariff. On 14.11.06 the meter reader informed him that the tariff will be changed to VII A. Hence he went to the office of the opposite partys on 17.11.06 but he could not submit his representation as the Asst. Engineer was not in the office. On 20.11.06 also he could not present the petition as the first opposite party/Asst. Engineer was not present in the office. He then requested the 5th opposite party/officer to receive the application and put up before the first opposite party. The 5th...

N. Vijayakumar Vs. the General Manager, Bsnl, Telecom District, Alappu ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.76/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The forum has dismissed the complaint with a cryptic order directing him to seek the arbitration procedure. Nothing is decypharable from the order of the Forum. The appellant/complainant has represented that the matter related for refunding of the amount expended for recharge coupon which was purchased from the second opposite party. We find that the order is not a considered one. Hence the same is set aside. The case is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the matter by a considered order. The case stands posted before the Forum on 22.4.2010. The office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

M.K. John, Proprietor Vs. Sri. S.J. Rajesh, Field View

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenant is in revision. He challenges order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The building is a commercial building and the revision petitioner tenant is conducting furniture show room there. The need projected by the landlord was that the building is required bona fide for occupation of his wife who is a dependent family member, so that she can conduct a fashion designing show room. Apart from the landlord, his wife the de facto claimant also was examined before the Rent Control Court. The oral evidence adduced by them inspired that court. Apart from the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, CPWs. 1 and 2, documents Exts. A1 to A16, B1 to B7, C1, C1(a) and C2 constitute evidence before the Rent Control Court. That court appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the need was bona fide and that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving t...

Subramanya Bhat Vs. Santhosh Kumar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLJ779,2010(2)KLT59

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:a) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext.P9 order and set aside the same by means of an appropriate writ or order.b) Pass an order directing the Munsiff Court, Kasargode to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in O.S. No. 344 of 2007 until a final decision is taken by this Hon'ble Court in this matter.c) Grant such other orders or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of this case.2. Petitioner is the auction purchaser, who purchased 1/5th right held by the 1st respondent judgment debtor in a property having an extent of 26 cents in Re-survey No. 5/3B and 52 cents comprised in Re-survey No. 7/3 of Kumgbadje village, which was brought to sale in E.P. No. 137/06 in O.S. No. 284/05 by the decree holder, the 2nd respondent bank. After depositing the sale price, sale over the property was confirmed and later a sale certificate was issued in fav...

State of Kerala Vs. Raveendran Pillai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT25

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the Writ Petitioner. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the application for FL-3 licence has tote considered with reference to the law prevailing on the date of submission of the application or on the date of consideration/disposal of the application. The matter happened to be referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court on prima facie noticing that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Raghavan 2009 (1) KLT 625 cannot stand with the decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi : 2006 (3) KLT SN 66 (C. No. 92) SC : AIR 2006 SC 2652. Before dealing with the above question, we will briefly state the facts necessary for the disposal of the case.2. The respondent submitted an application for FL-3 licence on.30.9.2001. At the relevant time, Rule 13(2) of the Foreign Liquor Rule...

M/S. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Service and Others Vs. Krishna ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC No. 137/2003 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with compensation of Rs. 1,500/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as well as interest at 12% if the amounts are not paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The case of the complainant is that he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite parties for arranging Canadian Permanent Visa. The opposite parties failed to provide the same causing much financial and mental strain to the complainant. They have also refused to refund the amount received and promised only to return Rs. 15,000/-. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement and that the venue of the arbitration is agreed to be at Chandigarh. It is also contended that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- is not refundable. It is all...