Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

M/S. Venus Marketing Puthiyara, Calicut Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The short question raised in the revision case filed by the assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming disallowance of input tax credit claimed by the assessee for the year 2005-2006 under S.11(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter called “the Act”). We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the State. 2. VAT regime was introduced in the State from 2005-2006 onwards. Registered dealers paying tax Under S.6(1) of the Act on the sale of goods at the rates prescribed in the various Schedules to the Act are entitled to claim input tax credit based on purchase bills as provided under S.11(1) of the Act. However, S.6(5) of the Act provides that those registered dealers with turnover below Rs.50 lakhs in an year are entitled to remit tax at .5% (half percent) of the turnover. However, the dealers paying presumptive tax under S.6(5) are not entitled to claim input tax credit on the purc...

The Secretary, Travancore Deveswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram and Other ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT587; 2011(4)KLJ33

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have the affidavit sworn to on 7.2.2011 by the Forester of the Sathram Section of Periyar West Division of Periyar Tiger Reserve. That affidavit is filed touching different aspects in relation to the views of the Forest Department as regards the Pullumedu incident. Along with that affidavit we have Annexure A which is the location map of Uppupara (Pullumedu) of the Periyar Tiger Reserve. We have before us Sri.P.R. Suresh, Deputy Director, Periyar Tiger Reserve - West Division, Peermedu. We have been appropriately assisted by Adv. Lakshmi Narayan R., the learned Senior Government Pleader with the assistance of Sri. Suresh regarding the contents of Annexure A location map of Uppupara. We have also heard Adv. V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned standing counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned senior counsel Sr.Adv. N. Dharmadan for the Ayyappa Seva Sangham and Adv. S. Krishnamoorthy for the Thanthri. We have also heard Adv. Krishn...

Ajay P. Asher Vs. Kirit P. Asher and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)510; 2011(3)KLT110(SN)(C.No.110); 2011(3)KLJ631; 2011(3)KHC288

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. Plaintiff is the appellant. His claim for partition and separate possession of the suit properties was negatived by the court below upholding the opposition of the 1st defendant that there was testamentary succession over the properties under Ext.B9 Will. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has come up with this appeal. 2. Plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the two sons, and the 2nd defendant, the only daughter of late P.L.Asher. Three schedules of properties as 'A', 'B' and 'C' were described under the plaint for partition and separate possession. Plaint 'A' schedule property belonged to the aforesaid P.L.Asher, the father of the parties and, 'B' and 'C' schedule properties belonged to their grand father, the former of them is immovable property and the latter, movable properties, was the case of the plaintiff. Suit claim for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the above three schedule properties was sought for by the plaint...

M/S. Star Metals, Xiii/7074 Vs. the Authority for Clarification and An ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT100(SN)(C.No.100); 2011(3)KHC286

Ramachandran Nair, J. This is an appeal filed under Section 62(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act challenging the order issued by the authority for clarification under Section 94 of the Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The appellant applied for payment of tax at compounded rate in respect of the stone crushing unit installed and run by the appellant. Stone crushing units are entitled to remit tax at compounded rate based on the size (length and width) of the machine used for crushing the stone. The compounded rates provided for the machines of different sizes under Section 8(b) are the following:- "(i) for each crushing machine of size not exceeding 30.48cm x 22.86cm = Rs.50,000/- p.a. (ii) for the each crushing machine of size exceeding 30.48cm x 22.86cm but not exceeding 40.64cm and 25.40cm = Rs.1,60,000/- p.a. (iii) for each crushing machine of size exceeding 40.64cm x 25.40cm = Rs.3,2...

K.M. Basheer Moulavi and Others Vs. Kerala State Industrial Developmen ...

Court: Kerala

J. Chelameswar, C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment in O.P. No.9348 of 1997 dated 01.07.1997, by the petitioner therein. 2. The sole respondent is the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation. The respondent ‘took over’ certain properties of a private limited company known as ‘Salih Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd’. The property is popularly known as ‘Fort Manor’ is located at Power House Road, Thiruvananthapuram. Such ‘take over’ was made in exercise of the power conferred on the respondent under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act obviously on the ground that the abovementioned Salih Industrial Enterprises defaulted in repayment of certain loans due to the respondent Corporation. Subsequent to the take over, the respondent put up the abovementioned property for sale by inviting tenders from interested parties and an advertisement (marked as Ext.P1 in the Original Petition) in this regard was published in the I...

Manjuletha Vs. the District Medical Officer, Malappuam

Court: Kerala

(Writ Petition praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP (c) the High Court be pleased to sty the observation in Ext.P-1 so far a it gives “severe warning so as to repeat his type of mistakes in future”, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.) 1. This bunch of writ petitions came up before me for considering whether the issues involved in them relate to any of the subjects enumerated in the letter bearing No.104/2011/KAT dated 25.06.2011 of the Registrar of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and if so, whether they could be transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal was established as per Government of India notification No.G.S.R.705(E) dated 25th August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, extraordinary Part II - Section 3 - Sub-section (1) No.476 dated 25.8.2010. As per order No. A-11014/9/2009 AT dated 25th August, 2010 of the Government of India, Ministry of Pe...

C.P. Gireeshan and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. This bunch of Writ Petitions came up before me for considering whether the issues involved in them relate to any of the subjects enumerated in the letter bearing No.104/2011/KAT dated 25/6/2011 of the Registrar of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and if so, whether they could be transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal was established as per Government of India notification No.G.S.R.705(E) dated 25th August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India extraordinary Part II-S/3-sub-s(1) No.476 dated 25.8.2010. As per order No.A-11014/9/2009 AT dated 25th August, 2010 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, the Chairman of the Tribunal was appointed. On 28th June, 2011 the Chairman issued order No.105/2011/KAT invoking the powers conferred on him by sub-s.(6) of S.5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) to the effect that with effect from 12th day of July, 2011, ...

Veluthedath Parambil Visalakshi Vs. P.P. Prakasan and Another

Court: Kerala

'CR' 1. The question raised for a decision in this civil revision filed under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") is whether in view of the power given to the Family Court to adjudicate dispute of the nature coming under Sec.7(1)(d) of the Family Court Act (for short, "the Act") power of the District Judge (or other Court to which that power is delegated) to grant succession certificate under Sec.371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, "the Succession Act") is taken away. 2. On the death of one Balan, one of his sons moved a petition before learned Sub Judge, Tirur under Sec.371 of the Succession Act for the grant of a Succession Certificate regarding a sum of `.9,00,000/- in deposit with the third respondent, a co-operative bank. Since petitioner was shown as a nominee in the deposit receipt, she was impleaded as a party in the original petition. Petitioner claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the said Balan (which is not admitted by responden...

B. Arjuna Raja Vs. the State of Kerala Represented

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The connected revision cases are filed by the assessee under Section 63 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenging order of the VAT Appellate Tribunal confirming his assessment for 2006-2007. Two cases happened to be filed in the same matter because Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and allowed the cross objection filed by the Revenue against the order of the first appellate authority granting partial relief to the assessee. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents and have perused the orders and records of the case. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in timber having main office in Tamil Nadu and Branch in Kerala. Timber fully imported from Malasia were first stocked in the godowns of the petitioner in Tamil Nadu, wherefrom it was stock transferred to the Branch in Trivandrum and sold there. Timber is an item on which tax is payable in advance at the Boarder Check Post when it is brought from out...

V.K. Raghavan Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary, Co-ope ...

Court: Kerala

The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a petition seeking compensation from a co-operative society for the death of a member of that co-operative society due to an alleged act of negligence on the part of that co-operative society and its office bearers is maintainable before the Arbitrator under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act for short. 2. The petitioner is a member of the third respondent bank, a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act for short. The house, where the petitioner is residing, is situate on the northern side of a building belonging to the third respondent bank, which was used to store fertilizer and other goods. A compound wall separated the two properties. A portion of the said compound wall collapsed on 3.9.2008 resulting in the death of the petitioner's wife, who was also a member of th...