Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(2004)BC324; 2003(3)KLT753
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner, who is a driver employed with KSRTC is challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated wide Exts.P2, P4 and P6 for recovery of arrears of loan amount defaulted by the debtors for whom petitioner was a surety. The recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is attachment of salary through the employer namely, KSRTC. The challenge is confined to recovery proceedings by way of attachment of salary through employer, KSRTC over the limits prescribed by Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the KSFE. While the contention of the petitioner is that Section 60(1)(i) is applicable by virtue of operation of Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act and petitioner's salary should not be attached over the limits prescribed under Section 60(1)(i) that too, only within the limited period, the standing counsel appearing for KSF...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT1063; [2006]143STC467(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is 'pasteurised milk' not 'fresh milk' as contemplated under Entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 so as to be exempted from the levy of tax? This is the short question that arises in these two writ petitions. The Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P. No.5975 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The petitioner is a private limited company, It is engaged in the processing of milk. It is running a small-scale industrial unit. It is registered as a dealer under the K.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner is selling pasteurised milk, curd and ghee etc. The petitioner filed its return for the assessment year 1996-97. It showed a total turnover of Rs. 35,51,706.65 on account of the sale of milk. It claimed exemption from payment of sales tax. Vide order dated March 21, 2001, the Assessing Authority accepted the petitioner's claim and finalised the assessment 'as a case of nil demand'.3. The petitioner had also filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker17; [1998]94CompCas577(Ker)
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Kerala Chillies Act, 1975 as ultra vires, and unconstitutional and seeking a direction to grant permission to the petitioners to conduct chillies of more than Rs. 25,000/-. The said provision reads as follows :--'No foreman shall be entitled to conduct at a time chillies, the aggregate amount of which exceeds:-- (a) Where the foreman is a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (Central Act 10 of 1949) or a corresponding new Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisilion and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Cenlral Act 5 of 1970), 60% of the net assets of the foreman.(b) in other cases, 50% of the net assets of the foreman :Provided that the chitty amount in the case of any one chitty conducted by a foreman shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees ;Provided further that the maximum limit specified in the foregoing proviso shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2009)24VST29(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the KGST Act') confers power on the Government to grant exemption from payment of tax. In exercise of the said power, S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 was issued. It, inter alia, provided that there will be an exemption in the case of new industrial units under small-scale industries, and medium and large-scale industries for a period of seven years from the date of commencement of commercial production in respect of tax payable under the KGST Act on the turnover of sale of goods manufactured and sold within the State and on the turnover of goods taxable at the point of last purchase in the State, which are used for manufacturing other goods for sale within the State or inter-State. Exemption is also provided from payment of surcharge payable under Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 in relation to the goods mentioned in Sub-clause (a). The aggregate exemption in respect of sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker131
Mohammed, J.1. What is before us is a theme of intense debate involving the use and occupation of forest lands and its inevi-table reaction to ecological balance and environmental outfit. This is brought to us by way of a 'public interest litigation' moved by a registered Society known as 'Nature Lovers Movement'.2. 'Love of nature' is not a modern phenomenon. It existed from the beginning of the humanity itself. 'Man is the measure oi all things.' so said Plato. Man loves nature and nature in turn nourishes him. Man serves society and society in turn preserves him. Nature and society are thus interdependent and the duty of man to them is inherent. These basic percepts envisage the protection of environment and preservation of humanity. But 'For the greenest of environmentalists, humans are oflesser importance than the abundant and diverse flora and fauna of the planet. Humans are defined as a recent addition to the livestock and are considered to have been a wholly disruptive influenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker189
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. These two original petitions are filed regarding rejection of their nomination papers for contesting for the election to the Executive Committee of the second respondent, Kerala High Court Advocate's Association. Second respondent is a Bar Association as prescribed in the Advocates Act and the Advocates Welfare Fund Rules. With regard to O.P.No. 31185 of 1999, for the petitioner therein five nomination papers were submitted for the post of Vice President. The first three nomination papers were proposed by three different advocates with the name K. B. Suresh. Membership number was given in two nomination papers and in one nomination paper address was also given after the name. It is stated by the Returning Officer who was present in Court that petitioner's name is written in the membership register as Suresh K. B. and not K. B. Suresh. Apart from the above defect, his membership number was also written in the nomination form which is unwarranted as there is anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2003)182CTR(Ker)403; [2003]264ITR545(Ker); 2003(2)KLT443
G. Sivarajan, J.1. All these Appeals arise under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The main question involved in all these cases is as to whether the Government securities held by the appellants as required under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are stock-in-trade of the assessee Banks and consequently the assessee Banks are entitled to re-value the said securities at the close of the assessment year and claim depreciation in respect of the notional loss suffered by the assessee Banks in respect of the said securities in the assessment under the Act. The other questions in some of the Appeals are (1) regarding the validity of the assessments made under Section 147 of the Act and (2) regarding the entitlement for deduction of the interest paid for the broken period claimed by the assessee.2. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Calicut is the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker121
AR. Lakshmanan. J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment of K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. in O.P. No. 17737 of 1999 dated 12th August, 1999 (reported in AIR 2000 Kerala 28)2. In this appeal the following interesting questions arise for determination.(i) Whether coffee is not a forest produce as contended by the respondent and as per the definition contained in Section 2(f) of the Kerala Forest Act. (ii) Whether coffee is a plantation crop as held by this Court in the decision in Aliyakutty Paul v. State of Kerala (1995) 2 Ker LT 93 and whether the decision of the Division Bench requires reconsideration. (iii) Whether Section 75A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 authorises levy and collection of Forest Development Tax (FDT) at 5% of the amount of consideration paying for the forest produce disposed of by the Government by sale. (iv) Whether the levy and collection of Forest Development Tax under Section 75A are legal. (v) Whether such levy and collection canbe made when A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ291
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This case calls for interpretation and application of propositions (a) to (c) in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla 2005 (4) KLT 209.The common petitioner is the 3rd accused in four connected prosecutions all initiated by the 1st respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act Admittedly, the petitioner is not a signatory to the four cheques in question. He has been sought to be fastened with liability under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act on the basis of the following specific identical allegations raised in para-1 of the four complaints concerned:The first accused is a public limited company, the second accused is the Managing Director and the third accused is the Director Finance of the first accused. The second and third accused are fully involved in the working of the first accused company.(emphasis supplied)2. Later in para-6 of all these complaints, the following identical averments also do appear:6. At the time when the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT35
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate of this Court and is also a member of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association, hereinafter called the 'Association'. A resolution moved by some of the members condemning the conduct of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court in the constitution of a Full Bench which passed an interim order in a case by majority and a request to the Chief Justice to avoid repetition of such incidents was passed by the General Body of the Association on 8.10.2003. The full text of the resolution produced as Ext. P2 in the W.P. is extracted hereunder for easy reference:'We the members of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association express our grave concern over the manner in which a case which ordinarily ought to have been heard by a single Judge having jurisdiction over the subject, was listed before the Division Bench presided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner without an express or...
Tag this Judgment!