Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1978]42STC1(Ker)
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These tax revision cases raise a question whether 'special boiling point spirit' and 'shell hexane' are liable to be assessed at single point under Schedule I of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or on multi-point scheme of taxation under Section 5(1)(ii) of the said Act, read, in either case, with the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act. The revisions relate to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72. For the years 1968-69 to 1970-71, the assessments were completed accepting the position that the goods in question fell under Section 5(1)(ii) of the Act and were liable to be assessed under the multi-point scheme of taxation at 3 per cent sales tax. The assessment was reopened and the goods were assessed to single point tax under item 57B of Schedule I at the rate of 15 per cent sales tax on the ground that they constituted 'petrol' exempt from taxation by specific enumeration under item 57A of the said schedule itself. For the assessment year 1971-72...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1978]41STC364(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. Section 5A of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, reads:5A. Levy of purchase tax.-(1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 5 and either-(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise ; or(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State; or(c) despatches them to any place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce,shall, whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for that year at the rates mentioned in Section 5.(The rest of the section is not material and is omitted.)The assessee in this case purchased pine-apple, washed it, removed the ine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1980]121ITR254(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 271(1)(c) passed on March 31, 1973, was barred by limitation?' 2. The question arises with respect to the assessment year 1966-67. The return was filed on December 1, 1966, and the assessment was 'completed by order dated the 20th March, 1971. Penalty was imposed by order dated March 31, 1973. Section 275 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which provided the time-limit within which proceedings for imposition of penalty had to be completed was amended 'by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (42 of 1970) with effect from April 1, 1971. The section, after its amendment, permitted penalty proceedings to be completed within two years of the completion of the assessment order. It is beyond dispute that, but for this amendment, u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]116ITR135(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These two references are by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The question of law referred for our opinion in I.T.R. No. 28 of 1976 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the interpretation of Section 5(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 70,000 invested by her in National Defence Certificates and in Defence Deposit Certificates in addition to the overall exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 granted to her by the WTO under Section 5(1) of the Act ?' and in I.T.R. No. 37 of 1976, the question of law referred is: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the interpretation of Section 5(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 70,000 invested by her in National Defence Certificates and in Defence Deposit Certificates in addition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]117ITR334(Ker)
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The third respondent got possession of a stage carriage vehicle, as per Ext. P-2 agreement, styled as a 'hire purchase agreement'. In accordance with Ext. P-2 agreement, the petitioner, who is carrying on business as financiers were to let, and the third respondent to take, on hire, the motor vehicle together with the equipment and accessories for a term of 24 calendar months from June 9, 1973, subject to determination as mentioned below : The hirer was to pay the owners (petitioner) by way of rent, the sum mentioned in the second schedule to the agreement on the dates therein mentioned. He was to keep the vehicle in sole custody. He could not sell, assign, pledge, charge, underlet, lend or otherwise part with the possession, custody or beneficial interest of, in the said vehicle without the previous written consent of the petitioner. If the hirer failed to pay any of the instalments within the stipulated time whether legally demanded or not, becomes insolven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1979CriLJ177
ORDERP. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioner is the complainant in C. C. 8/77 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alwaye. Offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420 and 477-A read with Section 34 I. P. C were alleged against the first respondent and 5 others who are the office bearers of the H. M. D. P. Sabha, Moothakunnam. After the filing of the complaint, a search warrant was issued under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act 2 of 1974 for searching the office of the Sabha and for seizing certain documents specified therein. Pursuant to the search warrant, books, documents and papers were produced before the Court. The 2nd accused thereafter filed Cri. M. P. 50 of 1977 for recalling the search warrant and for the return of the seized documents to him.The contention put forward on his behalf was that the issue of search warrant was illegal and without jurisdiction in view of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1980]122ITR754(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The assessee retired as the Chief Justice of this court in 1960. In respect of his income-tax assessments for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, the question arose whether annuity deposit was payable under the provisions of Chap. XXII-A of the I.T. Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 1964.2. Overruling the assessee's contention, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the annuity deposits were payable. It referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for determination and opinion of this court :' Whether the Income-tax Officer on the date he completed the assessments for assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 was, after the repeal by way of omission of sections 280K and 280T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1967, competent to determine for these three assessment years the amount of annuity deposit required to be made by the assessee '3. Chapter XXII-A dealing with annuit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1978)6CTR(Ker)254
T. Kochu Thommen, J. - The petitioner in this Tax Revision Case is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963 (the Act). The tax relates to the year 1968-69. The question raised by the assessee is whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the revised assessment dated 23-11-1973, made under S. 19 of the Act was not time-barred.2. The original assessment under S. 17 was made on 30-4-1970. Subsequently notices dated 15-2-1973 and 6-3-1973 were issued to the assessee in terms of S. 19. The assessee filed its objections on 20-3-1973. Rejecting the objections, a revised order of assessment, in respect of the escaped turnover for the year 1968-69, was made by the Sales-tax Officer on 21-3-1973. This order was challenged by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated 29-5-1973 held that the assessee was not accorded a proper opportunity of being heard. The order challenged was accordingly set aside and the Sales-tax Officer was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]116ITR158(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reassessment made under Section 147(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, is not valid and proper ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the order of the AAC, which is appealed against by the assessee, cannot be said to be 'information' within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, and that, so far as the ITO is concerned, it is only a change of opinion ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that even if that order of the AAC appealed against by the assessee constitutes information within the meaning of Section 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961, such information being related...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1979Ker68
Gopalan Nambiyar C.J. 1. The Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (Act 7 of 1975) has been assailed in these writ petitions as violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and also of Article 301. The Act has a history. The first Building Tax Act 1961 imposed a tax on a uniform basis depending on the floorage or the plinth area of the building. The levy was struck down as unconstitutional by a learned Judge of this Court in Kunhali Haji v. State (1965 Ker LT 390). The decision was confirmed on appeal by a Division Bench -- vide State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kunhipokker (1966 Ker LT 694) : (AIR 1967 Ker 114); and again on further appeal by the Supreme Court --Vide State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty (1968 Ker LT 649 : AIR 1969 SC 378). Almost similar legislation in Mysore was struck down in Bhuvaneswariah v. State of Mysore (AIR 1965 Mys 170)) and in Bombay, in Lokmanya Mills v. Barsi Municipality (AIR 1968 Bom 229). The impugned Act was preceded by Ordinance 10 of 1974, replaced by Act 16 of...
Tag this Judgment!