Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1977]109ITR43(Ker)
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. In these two original petitions filed by the Travancore Rayons Ltd. wherein the respondents are the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Companies Circle, Ernakulam, and Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala I, Ernakulam, the same question arises for consideration. The first writ petition relates to the assessment year 1967-68, while the second is in respect of the succeeding year 1968-69.2. The facts, in brief, are these :The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of rayon yarn, cellulose film and other products. The company is an assessee on the file of the first respondent. In respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the petitioner had made applications on November 16, 1967, and February 3, 1969, respectively, for the issue of a tax credit certificate under Section 280ZB of the Indian Income-tax Act before the first respondent. The said Section provides that: 'Where any company engaged in the manufacture or production of any of the art...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Ker)0242B
Gopalan Nambiyar Actg. C.J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. No. 337 of 1970. The question raised in the writ petition was regarding the constitutionality of differential rates of levy of water-tax in the Mattancherry and the Ernakulam areas both of which are comprised in the limits of the corporation of Cochin, which was formed on and from 1-11-1967. In the Mattancherry area of the Corporation, water-charges are levied at the rate of Rs. 8/- per 1,000 gallons for non-domestic use; and in the Ernakulam area, at the rate of Rs. 3/- per 1,000 gallons for non-domestic use. We need not enter into the further details of the levy as the learned Single Judge has held the levy to be unconstitutional as discriminatory and no appeal against the said judgment has been filed by the Corporation.2. The only grievance of the petitioner is against the learned Judge having confined the relief granted to the petitioner from the date of pronouncing judgment on the theory of what the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker10
Gopalan Nambiyar, Ag. C.J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. No. 337 of 1970. The question in the writ petition was regarding the constitutionality of differential rates of levy of water-tax in the Mattancherry and the Ernakulam areas both of which are comprised in the limits of the Corporation of Cochin, which was formed on and from 1-11-1967. In the Mattancherry area of the Corporation, water-charges are levied at the rate of Rs. 8/- per 1000 gallons for non-domestic use; and in the Ernakulam area, at the rate of Rs. 3/-per 1000 gallons for non-domestic use. We need not enter into the further details of the levy as the learned. Single Judge has held the levy to be unconstitutional as discriminatory and no appeal against the said judgment has been filed by the Corporation. 2. The only grievance of the petitioneris against the learned Judge having confined the relief granted to the petitioner from the date of pronouncing judgment on the theory of what the learned J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Ker)291
T. Kochu Thommen, J. - The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of importing cashewnuts and exporting cashew kernels. In respect of two consignments of cashewnuts imported by them in 1972, they paid a sum of Rs. 11,491/- to the Customs authorities, Cochin as regulatory duty. The petitioner did not know at that time that, as per notification No. 16 dated 20-4-1972 issued by the Government of India under S. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with sub-S. (4) of S. 4 of the Finance Act, 1971 (Act 14 of 1971) cashewnuts were exempted from regulatory duty. It was only when the petitioner came to know of the notification did they realise that the amounts was unnecessarily paid. It may be mentioned here that complete exemption from regulatory duty is granted under said notification only if certain conditions mentioned therein are also satisfied. According to the petitioner, these conditions had been fully satisfied.2. The petitioner made an application to the Assistant Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ111Ker
George Vadakkal, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as the Deputy Chief Superintendent of S.S.L.C. and other public examinations conducted in March/April, 1969 at Centre No. 137, Government High School, Kalpakanchery. The Chief Superintendent was the Headmaster of that High School. On information received that there were leakage of question papers, it was on enquiry and investigation found out that one Purushothaman who was the peon of the aforesaid Government High School at the material time opened the steel safe (Almirah) kept in the Headmaster's room in the said High School by using duplicate key which he took from the drawer of a table and pilfered one S.S.L.C. question paper from each packet intended for the examination to be held in March, 1969, which was to start on 19-3-1969. By Ext. P1 communication dated 6-5-1969, the Manager, pursuant to the directions received by him from the District Educational Officer, placed the petitioner under suspension until further orders with immed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1979Ker130
Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit from which this second appeal arises. The properties scheduled to the plaint in the suit belonged to the family of the husband of first plaintiff. There was an earlier suit for partition of the assets of this family -- O. S. 134/1114 (M. E.) of the District Court, Trichur. During the pendency of the suit a Receiver appointed by the Court was in management of the properties involved in the litigation. The properties, now the subject matter of the present suit had been leased out by the Receiver to one Velappan on an aggregate rent of 57 paras of paddy and one bunch of bananas per year. During the pendency of the partition suit, first plaintiff's husband had died and the plaintiffs in the present action had been impleaded as his legal heirs in the partition suit. By the decree in the partition suit, which was finally confirmed in appeal on 27-10-1958, the properties had been set apart to these persons. 2. After the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1978]41STC1(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. tax revision cases relate to the claim for exemption from sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, in respect of the turnover on sales of 'P.V.C. cloth' (Rexine). T.R.C. No. 61 of 1976 relates to the year 1971-72 and the claim is in respect of an amount of Rs. 1,33,840.34; T. R. C. No. 62 of 1976 is in respect of 1972-73 and the claim is for Rs. 1,56,181.04. The genesis and the statutory background of the claim is as follows :Under Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India:Any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify.In accordance with the above constitutional provision, the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was passed by Parliame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1978]41STC36(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These four tax revision cases under Section 41 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, are by the same assessee against assessments to sales tax for the years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1968-69, respectively. The assessments were on best of judgment under Section 17 of the Act after issuing the requisite pre-assessment notices on the ground that the assessee did not produce accounts despite several notices to do so. The documents and records stated to have been seized on search of the assessee's premises were relied on ; and, in the light of these records, the taxable turnovers reported by the assessee for the years in question were enhanced and revised as follows :Assessment yearReported taxable turnoverEnhanced or revised turnover123Rs.Rs.1966-671,21,030.2511,92,592.541967-682,16,299.5510,99,199.061969-702,94,433.9911,99,024.001968-6999,507.1011,55,120.002. Counsel for the petitioner stressed this phenomenal increase from the reported turnover to the revised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1978]115ITR160(Ker)
BALAKRISHANA ERADI J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following two question to this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax, Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') :'(i) For an asset to be included either under section 4(1)(a)(i) or, as the case may be, section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax, 1957, in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71, or assessment year 1971-72, whether that asset should also be an asset within the definition of that term 'asset' in the Wealth-tax Act, 11957, as it applied at the time that asset was transferred by the assessee (ii) Whether the expression assessment year commencing after the March 31, 1964 appearing in the proviso to section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as it applied to assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, refers to wealth-tax assessment years ?'The aforesaid questions have arisen in relation to the assessments to wealth-tax made against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker126; [1978(36)FLR400]; (1978)IILLJ299Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The appeal is against the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in O. P. No. 363 of 1973 reported m 1975 Ker LT 460. In view of the importance of the question raised the matter was directed to be placed before a Full Bench. The learned judge dismissed the writ petition to quash Ext. P1 Award of the Registrar, confirmed on appeal by Ext. P2 order of the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal. The question relates to a dispute as to the seniority and promotion as between the writ petitioner-appellant and the 4th Respondent. The Committee of the Kuttipuram Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (referred to for short as the Society) promoted the appellant as Assistant Accountant on 1-5-1969. The 4th Respondent thereupon submitted a petition to the Committee complaining against the said promotion. The Committee by an order referred to in Ext. P1 as Ext Clause referred the matter to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Deputy Registrar after considering the ...
Tag this Judgment!