Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1978]42STC225(Ker)
M.P. Menon, J.1. 'Naphtha' and 'chemical fertilisers' are goods specified in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Under Section 5(1) of the Act, sales of naphtha attracts sales tax at 5 per cent. But where the sale is by one dealer to another for use by the latter as component part of goods to be manufactured by him, Section 5(3) provides that the rate shall be one per cent. An oil company, who is the assessee herein, sold naphtha to a manufacturer of chemical fertilisers, during the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. At the time of sale, as required by the proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, the manufacturer-purchaser had declared that naphtha was for use in the manufacture of goods covered by Schedule I. The assessing officer assessed the relevant turnover at one per cent. The Deputy Commissioner, however, found that naphtha was used as fuel for producing hydrogen and that the hydrogen in turn was used for manufacture of chemical fertilisers....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1979Ker1
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. This appeal arises in execution and has been referred to a Full Bench in view of the importance of the questions involved. The Division Bench has not stated the points of importance. The learned Single Judge who referred the case to a Division Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Eapen Chacko v. Provident Investment Co. (P) Ltd., (1977 Ker LT 1) : (AIR 1976 SC 2610) and observed that the decision gave no indication as to whether an execution proceeding can be regarded as a continuation of the suit so as to make it a pending proceeding in a case where the suit was decreed prior to 1-1-1970, (the relevant date for the purposes of this case), and the execution commenced after that date. The learned Judge referred to a number of decisions as having been cited by Counsel in support of the contention that although the suit was itself decreed prior to 1-1-1970 the execution proceedings had to be regarded as pending even if initiated only after that d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1979Ker18; 1979CriLJ372
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These writ petitions challenge the vires of Rule 10 of the Kerala Food Adulteration Rules. In respect of the contravention of the said Rule, there was a criminal prosecution of the petitioners in these writ petitions. The validity of the Rule was canvassed in revision proceedings before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The Rule was upheld -- vide Gopinathan Nair v. Executive Officer, Anikkad (1975 Ker LT 549) : (1976 Cri LJ 171). These writ petitions are now filed to declare the Rules ultra vires.2. The learned Advocate-General placed before us the decision of this Court reported in 1975 Ker LT 549 : (1976 Cri LJ 171). He also cited the Supreme Court decision in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, (AIR 1970 SC 1) where it was ruled by the Supreme Court that where on the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court dismisses the revision after hearing both the parties, the order of the appellate court becomes merged with the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ248Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These O.Ps. were referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Chandrasekara Menon, J., in an elaborated order of reference running nearly to ten typed pages, as the learned Judge felt that the questions raised are not only of interest in an academic sense but also of great importance. The question itself as stated shortly by the learned Judge is whether the legal representatives of the deceased employer would fall within the definition of the term 'employer' in Section 2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act and of the term 'defaulter' in Section 2(e) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, read with Section 68 of the said Act. We shall notice the facts first in O.P. No. 4816 of 1976 in which the main arguments were advanced. Counsel in the other writ petition practically associated himself with the said arguments.O.P. No. 4816 of 19762. The four writ petitioners are the daughters of one Krishnan Padmanabhan, an abkari contractor who die...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1980(6)ELT615(Ker)
ORDERT. Kochu Thomman, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of tread rubber which used for retreading rubber tyres. Tread rubber is one of . the excisable goods mentioned under Item 16A of Schedule I to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.Section 3 of the Act states : -'3 Duties specified in the First Schedule to be levied. - (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in or imported by land into, any part of India, as, and the rates, set forth in the First Schedule.The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (The Rules) provide for the manner of assessment. Rules 9, 10 and 10A deal with assessment in the ordinary course i.e.,assessment by the departmental authorities. The provisions of Chapter VIIA deal with a different kind of assessments, relate to goods which have been ied by the Central Government in terms of Section 173A of the Act.Admittedly tread rubber is one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]117ITR599(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The following question of law has been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, viz.: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the industry was not in existence during the accounting year, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1972-73. The assessee was doing business under thename and style of 'The Cochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd.' till the Kerala State Electricity Board exercised its option to purchase the undertaking under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. That was with effect from December 2, 1970. The meter readings of the electricity consumed in any month was being taken by the staff of the compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ211Ker
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The principal question arising for determination in this case is whether the termination of service of a casual labourer employed under the railway administration brought about by the operation of Rule 2505 of the Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Manual) by reason of his having absented himself constitutes 'retrenchment' so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). A division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Eradi, J.) was a member by its order of reference dated 29th September, 1978 referred the case to a Full Bench in view of the importance of the matter.2. The writ petitioner was working as a casual employee under the Southern Railway administration. According to the petitioner he had been continuously functioning as such from 1948 onwards but this is not admitted by the respondents. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the particulars furnished by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1983(14)ELT2156(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiar, C.J.1. The Assistant Collector,. Central Excise, Ernakulam, the Appellant Collector, Central Excise, Madras,, and the Union of India, are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge allowing O.P. No. 124 of 1975 and declaring Exts. P4 and P6 and orders as illegal and holding that the claim for refund preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was within time and directing the same to be considered on the merits in accordance with law.2. The respondent is the Proprietor of Royal Smiths, Kunnamkulam, engaged in the manufacture of steel furniture. Between 2-4-1969 and 24-9-1969 he had cleared steel furniture whose total value came to Rs. 1,44,241.50. In accordance with the terms of Ext. PI notification which we shall presently notice, he filed an application for refund of the duty self-addressed and paid by him. The application was preferred on 29-3-1971. Ext. P2 notice dated 22-7-1972 was issued to him to show cause why the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1983LC633D(Kerala)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The Assistant Co Hector, Central Excise, Ernakulam, the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras, and the Union of India, are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge allowing O.P. No. 124 of 1975 and declaring Exts. P. 4 and P. 6 fend orders as illegal and holding that the claim for refund preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was within time and directing the same to b e ^considered on the merits in accordance with law.2. The respondent is the Proprietor of Royal Smiths, Kunnamkulam, engaged in the manufacture of steel furniture. Between 2.4.1969 and 24.9.1969 he had cleared steel furniture whose total value came to Rs. 1,44,241.50. In accordance with the terms of Ext. P 1 notification which we shall presently notice he filed an application for refund of the duty self-assessed and paid by him. The application was preferred on 29.3.1971. Ext. P 2 notice dated 22.7.1972 was issued to him to show cause why the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]120ITR42(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These are references by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, sent up at the instance of the revenue. The two references arise out of an appeal filed to the Tribunal by the revenue and a cross-objection preferred to it by the assessee. Both related to the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee, Shree Padmanabhaswami Temple Trust, Trivandrum, is a charitable and religious trust. The previous year is the year ended March 31, 1971. The controversy revolves round the question whether the trust whose objects are admittedly charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, was entitled to the exemption conferred by Section 11 of the I.T. Act, as it stood at the relevant time. The material part of the section as it stood at the relevant time read as follows :'(2) Where any income referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied or is n...
Tag this Judgment!