Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2002]125STC544(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of Sub-section (7B) of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Rule 22A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. Before going into the merits of the legal contentions, we may look into the facts.2. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai. It is a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'KGST Act' and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CST Act'). Appellant is a manufacturer-cum-dealer of electrical and electronic goods. A customer from Ernakulam placed an order with the appellant for supply of one Somotom Ar. Whole Body CT Scanner at a total cost of Rs.55 lakhs. As per the above order, appellant had to supply the CT Scanner from its factory at ex-Goa and carry out the installation of the equipment at free o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT250
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Retrospective levy of penal interest and rate of interest are the two issues to be tackled in these cases, in the background of an amendment to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). The impugned amendment is to Rule 39 (paragraph?) of the Scheme. Rule 39(1A) was introduced as per notification dated 4-2-1999. The provision reads as follows:'39(1A). If any society fails to transfer the employees contribution with interest accrued thereon after the commencement of Section 80A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, within a period of one year from 14.3.1995, that is the date of implementation of the pension scheme or has transferred only a part thereof, shall be liable to transfer such amount or part thereof as the case may be with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.'2. The Scheme is framed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT451
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. C.R.P. Nos. 1786, 1888 and 1930/2002 are filed by the respondents in R.C.P. No. 12/95 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Teliicherry. C.R.P. No. 2866/2001 is filed by the landlord who was the petitioner in the above Rent Control Petition.2. The landlord filed a petition for eviction under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the landlord, the petition schedule building belongs to her and it was leased out to the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition as per registered kychit on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- on 13.9.1963. Respondents 2 and 3 in the R.C.P are the sub tenants and first respondent sub leased portions of the building to them with the consent of the then landlord. Without consent of the landlord first respondent sub leased a portion of the building to 4th respondent. It was also alleged that respondents 1 to 3 are not doing any busines...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT268
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order in R.C. A. No. 44 of 2001 of the District Court, Ernakulam. While the tenant is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3384 of 2001, landlords are the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 218 of 2002. Original proceeding is R.C.P. No. 57 of 1995 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 11(3) bona fide use, Section 11(4)(i) subletting and Section 11(4)(ii) using the building in such a manner as to reduce its utility and value, of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Before the trial court, it was contended by the tenant that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable. The tenant also contended that there are two buildings, which were taken on rent and a single petition is not maintainable. This contention was accepted. Further, the Rent Control Court held against the petitioners - landlords under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT982
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Challenge is against Ext. P4 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The first respondent filed Ext. P1 petition before the said Commission alleging human rights violation consequently on an alleged act by the petitioners herein, during his treatment at the hospital of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is the Director of the hospital. The petitioners objected on the grounds of limitation. Section 36(2) the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides that 'State Commission shall not enquire into any matter after expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights alleged to have been committed'. Therefore, Ext. P1 petition was filed belatedly beyond the said period from the date of alleged-human rights violation namely, administration of certain chemicals on 13.1.2000, 14.1.2000 and 15.1.2000. Even according to the 1st respondent on 13.1.2000,14.1.2000 and 15.1.2000 he was given M4N and G4N injections...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT622; [2004]135STC207(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. This revision is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year concerned is 1986-87. The assessee is a Co-operative Printing Press, inter alia, engaged in themanufacture and sale of printed Account Books and Registers. In the assessment year concerned, the assessee contended before the assessing authority that printed Account Books and Registers are stationery items exigible to tax only at the rate of 5 per cent as they are unclassified items. The assessing authority took the stand that these two items will fall under Entry 97B of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. In appeal, the first appellate authority considered both items with reference to Entries 97 and 97B of the First Schedule to the said Act as they stood at the relevant time and took the view that the two items will not fall under any of the said two entries and held that it is liable to be assessed only as unclassified items exigible to tax at 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(2003)BC238
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in LA. No. 93 of 2000 in LP. No. 1 of 2000 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Petitioner is the 93rd respondent in LP. No. 1 of 2000 filed by the respondents herein on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The respondents in the Civil Revision Petition filed the above petition for adjudging as insolvents under the provisions of the Kerala Insolvency Act on the ground that huge debts were incurred in money lending business by the first respondent herein under the name and style 'National Union Trust' at Kothamangalam. 2. The petitioner-herein is a Banking Society incorporated as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and having branches among other places at Kothamangalam in Ernakulam District. The respondents had, availed two loans of Rs. 9 lakhs from the petitioner - Bank on 17.11.1995, on the security of the immovable properties belonging to the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2003]131STC16(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 15002 of 1999. The original petition was filed by the petitioner against the proceedings under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the KGST Act') against the petitioner-assessee.2. The assessee is a firm doing business in wheat and wheat products, viz., maida and suji. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed returns declaring a total taxable turnover of Rs. 5,05,85,244.40 and Rs. 1,28,86,740.08 claiming exemption on the sales turnover of wheat products amounting to Rs. 3,43,92,149.82. Similarly, for the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee filed return declaring Rs. 5,89,89,500.51 and Rs. 6,92,247.48 as the gross and total turnover claiming exemption on the sales tax turnover of wheat products amounting to Rs. 5,75,28,426.48. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings and issued notice for the assessment year 1991-92 stating that the return for the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Ker)487; [2003]263ITR279(Ker)
G. Swarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The appellant is an assessee to income-tax on the files of the respondent. The appellant was holding 255 equity shares of face value of Rs. 100 in a company by name SISCO Ltd. Another company M/s Essar Shipping Ltd. (Essar) of Essar Group made an open offer vide its letter dt. 24th June, 1991, for acquisition of the shares of M/s SISCO Ltd. As per the offer for the transfer of each share, the Essar Shipping Ltd. would give a consideration in cash Rs. 65 and 50 equity shares of Essar Shipping Ltd, of the face value of Rs. 10 each as fully paid. Pursuant to the said offer, the appellant sold his 255 shares to Essar. The assessee got 12,750 shares of Essar and Rs. 16,575 as consideration for the transfer of 255 shares of SISCO.2. The appellant filed his return of income under the Act for the asst. yr. 1992-93, wherein he had returned capital gains on account of the sale of 255 equity shares of SISCO Ltd. at R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2003Ker61
Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Government of Kerala (Public Works Department) represented by the Chief Engineer, National Highway. Trivandrum under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order in O. P. (Arb.) No. 222 of 2000 of the District Court, Ernakulam. By order dated 28-6-2001 the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the Government of Kerala under Section 34 of the Act and refused to set aside the arbitration award dated 18-8-1999 except with regard to claim No. 1 against which respondent herein has preferred the Cross-Appeal.2. Government of Kerala awarded the work of four lining and strenthening ofAlwaye--Vyttila, Aroor Cherthala and strengthening of Vytiila--Aroor section vide agreement dated 8-3-1994. In response to the notification issued by the Government of Kerala, claimant submitted its tender on 29-4-1993. Tender price quoted for both packages by the cla...
Tag this Judgment!