Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-24-1983
Reported in : [1983]54STC222(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Exhibits P3 and P4 which are impugned are orders of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the 'Act'), for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner had claimed exemption under Section 6A of the Act. The exemption was not granted for the reason that the petitioner failed to furnish the details under Rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, made by the State Government (I shall call it the 'State Rules') under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner-assessee is that the said rule made by the State Government has been superseded by Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, made by the Central Government (I shall call it the 'Central Rules') under Section 13(1) in respect of transactions falling within Section 6A and accordingly insistence on' compliance with the provisions of Rule 5A of the State Government is unjustified.2. It has to be stated that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-17-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Ker164
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The defendant in O. S. 193 of 1977 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavalikkara, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant is the tenant of a building belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. As per rental arrangement dated 8-10-1974, evidenced by Ext. A1, the building was let to the defendant, for one year. The agreed rent was Rs. 1.55 per day. After the expiry of the term, the defendant continued in occupation of the building. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 322 of 1975 for eviction and for arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendant in the said suit that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice terminating the tenancy in that case was Ext. 85. By Ext 85 notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from 8-11-1975. According to the defendant, the tenancy should be terminated on the day preceding the date of tenancy. The contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!