Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker146
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. Theoriginal petitions seek to declare Sections 18(3) (2) (a) (1) and 18A of the Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 and Rule 13 (1) substituted by S.R.O. 70/70 dated 18-2-1970, in tie rules relating to licences for the sale of foreign liquor unconstitutional and for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Excise to renew the licences.2. The petitioners were the holders of Foreign Liquor 1 Wholesale licences for sale of foreign liquor for the year 1969-70. The period of their licences expired on 31-3-1970.3. The Cochin Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 and the Travancore Abkari Act, IV of 1073 were continued in force by the Travancore-Cochin State Administration and Application of Laws Act VI of 1125. By Section 2 of the Cochin Abkari (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1967 (Act 10 of 1967) the Cochin Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 and the Rules, Orders and Notifications made and issued thereunder were extended to the areas of the State of Kerala where the said Act was not in fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker65
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This Writ Appeal and these writ petitions were heard together as they raise the question of vires of the Kerala Land Tax Act (Act 13/1901), hereinafter referred to as the Act, unless the context indicates otherwise. The validity of the demand for tax and the steps taken to recover the tax due under the Act have been challenged also on the merits.2. The Act has a legislative history. It is not necessary to trace it earlier than to the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Land Tax Act 15/ 1955. (referred to where necessary as the 1955 Act) applicable in the Travancore-Cochin State. After the re-organisation of States and the formation of the Kerala State, the 1955 Act was made applicable from 1-9-1957 by Act 10/1957 to the Malabar area, newly included to form the Kerala State. A short summary of the main provisions of the said Act would be helpful. The preamble set out that it was necessary to provide for the levy of a low and uniform rate of basic tax on all lands ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1971]79ITR72(Ker)
E.K. Moidu, J.1. In these criminal revision petitions the order committing the petitioner for trial to the Sessions Court in respect of charges under sections 276(d) and 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which will hereinafter be referred to as ' the Act ', has been challenged on the ground that the charge under Section 276B is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and that the charge under Section 276(d) is not otherwise sustainable.2. The Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Kottayam, instituted eight separate complaints at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, against the petitioner who was alleged to be the managing director of one Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd., Kottayam, for his failure to pay to the Central Government income-tax which he deducted from the dividend when it was distributed among its shareholders each year, beginning from April 20, 1961, and ending with February 1, 1968., The year of assessment, the date of declaration of dividend, the date on whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1971]82ITR845(Ker)
The judgment of Govindan Nair and Mathew JJ. was delivered by :GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Board of Revenue (Taxes), Trivandrum, has stated a case and referred the following question for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass an order in this case under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ?'The facts necessary for answering the question may be state. One Shri T. V. Kochuvareed was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The assessee had claimed expenses towards the upkeep and maintenance of immature rubber plants, the agricultural income taxed having been derived from a rubber plantation. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed, out of such expenses claimed by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 2,500 for the year 1959-60, and a sum of Rs. 3,500 for the year 1960-61. Thereafter, on March 13, 1963, the Commissioner of Agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1971]82ITR442(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. These are two references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). Two questions of law have been referred to this court as arising out of an order dated July 20, 1967, passed by the Tribunal disposing of an appeal filed before it by the respondent-company challenging the correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities disallowing the claim put forward by the company for certain deductions in respect of its assessment for the assessment year 1963-64.2. The assessee is a private company. It was functioning as the managing agent in respect of another company by name the Aluminium Industries Ltd. The relevant assessment year with which we are concerned is 1963-64 and the accounting period is the year ending December 31, 1962.3. One Shri K. K. Raman was associated with the assessee-company as a perman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker98
Raman Nayar, C.J. 1. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as originally enacted (the original Act as we shall call it) finds a place in the NinthSchedule to the Constitution -- see Item 39 -- and therefore has the protection of Article 31-B. It has been amended three times, first by Act 12 of 1966, then by Act 9 of 1967, and now by Act 55 of 1969, the amendments made by the last mentioned Act (which we shall call the amending Act) being far-reaching. (To the 132 sections in the original Act, over 50 new sections have been added while over 60 sections have been amended. To the 62 definitions 10 have been added while 20 have been amended. The amended Act is therefore virtually a new piece of legislation). The first of these was enacted by the President while the remaining two have received his as sent -- it has been contended not in the free and proper exercise of his judgment, but, of course, we cannot go into that-- but none of them has been included in the Ninth Schedule....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1971]80ITR180(Ker)
Isaac, J. 1. This is areference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to, as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, on the application of the assessee. The question referred for decision is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the letting of the building by the assessee to the Export Promotion Council is assessable under the head 'Income from house property' ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee is a medical practitioner. In 1962, he constructed a building at Ernakulam. When the construction was in progress, he entered into an agreement with the Export Promotion Council to lease the second floor and part of the first floor of the building to the Council. The terms and conditions of the lease are contained in a letter dated July 16, 1962, written by the Chairman of the Council to the assessee. This letter is annexure 'A' to the reference and it reads :'Dea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker290
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This Second Appeal by two of the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant (impleaded as Defendants 80 & 81) in a suit for redemption together with amounts due by way of damages and otherwise, has come on before a Full Bench as the constitutional validity of Section 4-A of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 was sought to be raised. But as would appear hereinafter, the vires of the section does not really appear to arise,--at any rate not at the present stage,--and the case has to be disposed of, otherwise than by pronouncement on the constitutional issue.2. The 68 items of plaint properties covering nearly an extent of 130 acres, and comprising wet lands palliyals, forests, parambas and kudiyiruppus belonging to the plaintiff's tarwad, and were allotted on partition, by the decree in O. S. No. 12 of 1936 to her tavazhi. The main tarwad had mortgaged Items 1 to 67 by Ext. B-116 dated 31-3-1905 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to one Pankunny M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1972]83ITR362(Ker)
Sadasivan, J.1. The Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Kottayam, is the appellant in all these appeals. Complaints were brought against the respondents-office bearers of the Ettumanoor Motors (P.) Ltd., under Sections 276(d) and 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1969, for non-payment to the credit of the department all the tax collected on the dividend distributed among the shareholders of the company. C. C. Nos. 107 and 108/69 are the complaints filed. In C. C. No. 107/69, the complaint was against accused, M/s. C. L. Joseph and V. Devassia, complaining that their company had declared dividend amounting to Rs. 27,000 and odd on December 20, 1961, and distributed the same on February 1, 1962, after deducting Rs. 8,217 from the dividend towards tax under Section 18(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Under Section 18(6) of the said Act and under Section 200 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the principal officer of the company was bound to pay the tax so deducted within ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker314
Raghavan, Ag. C.J.1. These cases have come before a Full Bench since the constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as amended has been impugned in these cases. In fact, Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of the section alone have been impugned in these cases and therefore, the discussion hereinafter will relate only to those two clauses. Since the constitutional validity of the section is impugned, the Advocate General of the State has also appeared.2. In two of these cases some preliminary objection regarding the application of Section 4A has been raised. Under Section 108. Transitory Provisions though some discussion has taken placeat the bar, eventually the objection has been dropped; and I am not therefore considering the said objection. And I straightway proceed to consider the merits of the attack on the section. I may also observe at the very outset that the learned Advocate General has conceded before us that his attempt wo...
Tag this Judgment!