Court : Kerala
1. Whether the removal of admission and access to entertainment event and amusement facilities [sub-clause (j) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994] from the Negative List of Services by an Amendment of 2012 and the consequent imposition of service tax on such activity would result in the Union Parliament trenching upon the exclusive field assigned to the State, under Entry 62 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is the question raised herein. 2. Entry 62 of List II [any reference to Lists I, II or III is to the Lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution] deals with taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling . The State has also brought out the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as State Act of 1961 ], wherein Section 3, the charging section, provides for levy of tax and the rate of tax; connected cases the same being on the price for admission to any entertainme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The appellant herein was the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Ernakulam during 2000-2002. On the allegation that he received an amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from one Johny on 31.7.2002 at about 4 p.m, as a reward for passing favourable orders in the appeal brought by the said Johny against the assessment order passed and penalty imposed, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Thrissur, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam in C.C 17/2003. The said said Johny is a businessman having some share trading business and other business activities and he has a company by-name 'Johny and Company', started in 1988. On the ground of failure on his part to submit income tax returns in time, the Income Tax Authorities conducted a raid at his office and his residence on 2.2.1994 and seized some documents. Proceeding under the Income Tax Act was initiated against him and in the said proceeding, the Income Tax Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The appellant is respondent in O.P.(Arb.)No.51 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam, an Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking an order to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 23.11.2004. The Court below by order dated 31.1.2006 allowed the Original Petition, setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, under section 37(1)(b) of the Act. 2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The appellant, the claimant before the Arbitrator and respondent before the court below, floated global tenders on 18.10.1999 for the work of Effluent Treatment Plants I and III. The respondent herein, the petitioner before the court below and respondent before the Arbitrator, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1.These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 18.08.2015 by which W.P(C) Nos.22658, 22771 and 21098 of 2015 have been dismissed. The Writ Appeals raising common question of facts and law are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the three Writ Appeals are as follows: W.A. No.1872 of 2015 (arising from W.P(C) No.22658 of 215). The 1st petitioner, a Charitable and Educational Trust, is running DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences. Permission to start Medical College with an intake of 150 students was granted in the academic year 2013-14 after conducting due inspection by the Medical Council of India (fort short, "the MCI").Letter of permission was issued on 15.07.2013. After establishment of the Medical College, petitioners have been conducting the Medical College. An application was made for renewal of the permission for academic year 2014-15, pursuant to which inspection was conducted, by the Medical Counci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 18.08.2015 by which W.P(C) Nos.22658, 22771 and 21098 of 2015 have been dismissed. The Writ Appeals raising common question of facts and law are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the three Writ Appeals are as follows: W.A. No.1872 of 2015 (arising from W.P(C) No.22658 of 215). The 1st petitioner, a Charitable and Educational Trust, is running DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences. Permission to start Medical College with an intake of 150 students was granted in the academic year 2013-14 after conducting due inspection by the Medical Council of India (fort short, "the MCI"). Letter of permission was issued on 15.07.2013. After establishment of the Medical College, petitioners have been conducting the Medical College. An application was made for renewal of the permission for academic year 2014-15, pursuant to which inspection was conducted, by the Medical Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 is against the order dated 21.10.2015 of the learned Company Judge of this Court in Co.Appl. Nos.341 and 342 of 2015 in Co.Pet. No.54 of 2011. 2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Co.Pet. No.54 of 2011 was filed by M/s.Flakt (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant company') seeking an order to wind-up M/s.24 Assured Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent company'), a company registered under the Companies Act having its Registered Office within the jurisdiction of this Court. The said Company Petition was dismissed for default on 23.7.2014, on account of non- appearance of the learned counsel who was representing the appellant company. 4. After dismissal of the Company Petition, the appellant company filed Co.Appl. No.341 of 2015 under Rule 9 of the Companies...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. W.P.(C) No.18690 of 2009 filed as a public interest litigation raises environmental concern alleging illegal filling of wet land to the extent of 7.42.64 hectares (74,264 sq.m) situated within 15 kilometers from the Ashtamudi Lake, which is one of the 19 sites designated as 'wet land of international importance' in the State of Kerala. The writ petition was entertained as public interest litigation on 6.7.2009. Various orders were passed by the Division Benches from time to time including appointment of Advocate Commissioner by order dated 21.12.2010 to inspect the premises and submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner, after inspection, submitted a report. Counter affidavits by the State as well as the 8th respondent, who is the contesting respondent had already been filed. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.10.2015, the petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit, in which, counter affidavit has also been filed by the 8th respondent. 2. W.P.(C)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the levy of Turnover Tax on Textile articles, that was introduced in the KVAT Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act'], with effect from 01.04.2014 and continued in the statute book till 01.04.2015, with effect from which date, it was omitted therefrom. The provision was introduced through the Kerala Finance Bill of 2014 and, by virtue of a notification under the Kerala Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, came into force with effect from 01.04.2014. Thereafter, it assumed a modified form when the Kerala Finance Act, 2014 was enacted on 23.07.2014, with effect from 01.04.2014. With effect from 01.04.2015, the levy of turnover tax on textile articles was omitted and the goods were made taxable under the KVAT Act @ 1% under II Schedule to the KVAT Act. Before dealing with the grounds of challenge raised in the writ petitions, therefore, I feel it would be apposite to notice the provisions as they stood, when introduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. These Original Petitions are filed from the separate orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (Ekm) No.242 of 2015 dated 10.03.2015, O.A.No.2351 of 2014 dated 15.12.2014 and O.A.No.2066 of 2014 dated 29.10.2014 by the applicants therein, by which, the Tribunal refused to entertain the claim of the petitioners that the rank list drawn by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, K.P.S.C ) was not in accordance with law and declined the reliefs sought for. Even though separate orders are passed by the Tribunal on different dates, the subject matter of the Original Petitions are common in nature and therefore we propose to dispose of the Original Petitions by a common judgment. The facts are common in nature and they are not elaborately required for the purpose of disposal of the Original Petitions in view of the nature of the short but interesting question to be decided. 2. The common question that arises for consideration in these Original Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This Regular Second Appeal essentially arises out of the challenge made as against the permission granted by the statutory authorities concerned for the establishment of a vault type cemetery in the appellant St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta district. The contesting respondents herein had filed Original Suit, O.S.No.57/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, praying to set aside the impugned orders issued by the statutory authorities concerned in the matter of permission for construction of a vault type cemetery by the St.Mary's Orthodox Church authorities concerned (respondents 5 and 6 in the O.S.) and for consequential injunction. The trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, on 29.9.2000 in O.S.No.57/1999, the church authorities had filed Appeal Suit, before the District Court concerned. The lower appellate court, as per the impugned jud...
Tag this Judgment!