Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2009]21STT355
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in all the above writ petitions Le., W.P. Nos. 14905, 15327, 15328, 15559 and 15560 of 2001 are identical, W.A. No. 4119 of 2003 was filed against the vacation of the interim order passed in WP No. 15328 of 2001, hence, all the writ petitions as well as the writ appeal are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The learned senior counsel Mr. Aravind P. Datar appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners are non-banking financial companies engaged in the business of hire-purchase and leasing; that 46th Amendment inserted Article 366(29A), of the Constitution of India, in which Clauses (a) to (f), particularly Clauses (c) and (d), which are relevant to this case, explain the ambit of the expressions of tax on the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalment and also a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)8MLJ1347
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. In the first batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who were originally employed as Helpers in the first respondent Electricity Board, have sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Technical Assistants (Electrical) and (Mechanical) from the date on which 66 and 21 others respectively were internally selected and appointed by a proceedings, dated 24.12.2008 issued by the second respondent (the Chief Engineer (Personnel)) without reference to the clarification issued by the third respondent, the Additional Director of Technical Education, vide his letter, dated 23.10.2008.3. By proceedings, dated 24.12.2008, the second respondent published the result of the internal selection to the category of Technical Assistant (Electrical) and (Mechanical) and allotted them to various circles as noted in the Annexure to the order. The appointments were made in terms of Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Servic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1987Mad248; [1989]65CompCas333(Mad); (1988)IMLJ45
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in O.S. No. 174 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24-9-1979, decreeing the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,533.55p. said to be due on a promissory note dated 16-2-1970 executed by the defendants in favour of the respondent Bank, for Rs. 22,900/- repayable with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum.2. The appellants have restricted their dispute in the appeal to a sum of Rs. 7,000/admitting their liability to pay the balance of Rs. 5,533.55 P.3. The case of the respondent Bank before the lower Court is as follows : - For purchase of a tractor, trailor and their accessories, the first defendant Muthian got a loan of Rs. 22,900/- from the respondent-Bank and he and the second respondent as his surety, executed a promissory note under Exhibit Al for the said amount in favour of the respondent Bank on 16-2-1970, agreeing to repay the said loan with int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1991]71CompCas723(Mad)
1. In all these writ petitions, the main point relates to the validity of section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987 by which the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, had been amended. The writ petitioners have sought for a declaration that the amendments are ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. The circular issued by the Inspector-General of Registration, Madras, dated December 9, 1988, is also assailed as illegal and invalid. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed in the first of the writ petitions are referred to hereunder 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of constructing flats in the city of Madras. It sells undivided share of land to prospective builders/purchasers under registered sale deeds. Thereafter, the purchasers build their flats at their own expense. Hitherto, stamp duty was collected only on the value of the undivided share in the land. Consequent to the amendment of the provisions, stamp duty is demanded on the cost of proposed const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(1)CTC641
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. In Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2004, the constitutionality of Sub-Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Section 60 of Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Central Act 4 of 2004) is questioned. The above Act is hereinafter referred to as 'POTA-2004'. The same was preceded by the Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003, promulgated on 27.10.2003. The said Ordinance was replaced by POTA - 2004. In the Ordinance, Sub-section (7) was not there, but, was added when the Bill was presented, which transformed into Act on the assent of the President on 2.1.2004. POTA-2004 is given retrospective effect from 27.10.2003 i.e. the date of issuance of the Ordinance.2. POTA was first enacted in the year 2002, which was also preceded by an Ordinance. POTA was enacted to contain terrorism and the incidental acts thereto and, in fact, has been modelled on the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as 'TADA'. As the tenur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC236; (2001)8SCC676; AIR2001SC2861
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In these appeals, in the tight of the contentions raised by the parties, the only question that needs to be answered is, whether Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirappalli in this State of Tamil Nadu, should seek approval of AH India Council for Technical Education to start technicalcourses in the University or to start a Technical Institute to conduct technical courses. For convenience, hereafter we will refer to the said University as 'University' and the All India Council for Technical Education as 'Council'.3. Writ Appeal No.1308 of 1998 is filed by the University and Bharathidasan Institute for Engineering and Technology. Writ Appeal No.1309 of 1998 is filed by a student, who was respondent No.4, impleaded in the Writ Petition No.14558 of 1998 and Writ Appeal No.1326 of 1998 is filed by another student, who was not a party in the writ petition, but after seeking leave from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]244ITR374(Mad)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 273A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 By its petition under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the asses-see has soug'ht for waiver of interest and penalties in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84. 2. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that there was an action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, consequent to which the assessee had filed returns of income admitting' unaccounted incomes arising to it. Since the assessments for the abovesaid assessment years were all completed after action under Section 132, I see no reason to entertain the present petition filed under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In the circumstances, the petitions are rejected. (Sd.) N. Rangachary,Commissioner of Income-taxT. N.-V, Madras-34.'Hence the above writ petition.15. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the impugned proceedings dated January 28, 1988, on the ground that the returns of income admitting the unaccounted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(Mad)497
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench dated 21.07.2006 passed in I.T.A. No. 2236/Mds/2005. On 21.08.2006, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the letter dated 20.12.2004 by the assessing officer is equivalent to a notice prescribed under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the letter is nothing but furnishing the reasons for reopening the assessment?2. If the answer to the above question is in affirmative then on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Appellate Tribunal right in law in holding that the appellant filed its Return of Income by its letter dated 18.12.2004 itself, whereas the Appellant filed its return only on 17.1.2005 which was admitted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(Mad)355; [2008]296ITR53(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the above tax case appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.1.2003 in M.P.No. 40(Mds)/2000 in ITA No. 719/Mds/1994 for the assessment year 1989-90 passed in exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rectifying its order under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, based on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered six years after the date of the order rectified?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has the power or jurisdiction to rectify its order beyond, the time limit of four years specified under Section 254(2)?2.1. The facts, in brief, are, the assessment for the assessment year 1989-90 was completed on 27.2.1992 on a total income of Rs. 26,24,137/- based on book profit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)2MLJ706
P.K. Misra, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench for determination in the context of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' are as follows:i) Is it necessary for the Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in the context of his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar?ii) Is the owner entitled to a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or not?iii) Should the Collector record his reasons in his order while dealing with the objections of the owner?2. Before considering these questions, a brief introduction is required. The Act was enacted in the year 1978 to provide for acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare schemes. As soon as the Act was enacted, it was mired in legal controversy and its validity was challenged. The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated 09.09.1981 declared that the Act was ultravires of the Constitution of India. However, in appeal, the Supreme...
Tag this Judgment!