Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-12-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Ker160; 2004(1)KLT557
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is the Director of St. James Hospital Trust which is registered as a charitable trust under the India Trust Act with Register No. 647/IV/88. Ext.P1 is the registered trust deed. The Tahsildar, Mukundapuram after verification issued Ext.P2 certificate testifying that the above Trust is a charitable and non-profit making organisation working in the field of health on non-sectarian basis Without consideration of religion, caste or creed. Ext.P3 balance sheet and income and expenditure account shows that it is not working in profit. In fact, it shows excess expenditure over income. The capital funds shows that the capital was issued by donation of Rs. 83,34,455/- and part of running expenses were also met by donations or loan obtained from the benefactors. The statement of accounts will reveal that the hospital was constructed with voluntary contributions from public and income generated was utilised for treatment to the poor and for making further construction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-04-2003
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT139
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company running a hospital by name, Medical Trust Hospital, at Ernakulam. The Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioner proposing building tax assessment on the hospital building vide notice Ext. P1 dated 16.4.1999. The petitioner filed a detailed reply claiming exemption from building tax in respect of the hospital-building on the ground that the building is principally used for charitable purposes and hence exempt from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter called the 'Act'. Since the question of exemption was raised by the petitioner, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the Government for decision under Section 3(2) of the Act. The Government after hearing the petitioner's objections issued Ext. P4 order whereunder building tax exemption chimed by the petitioner in respect of the hospital building was rejected for the reason that the petitioner was not rendering 'free medical reli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-03-2003
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT78; [2005]139STC504(Ker)
1. Whether medical oxygen and nitrous oxide can be treated as medicines for the purpose of levy of tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') is the question involved in this case.2. The assessee is the revision-petitioner. State is the respondent. The assessment year is 1987-88. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of medical oxygen and nitrous oxide. In the assessment for the year 1987-88 the assessee contended that the said two items are liable to be assessed at the rate of 5 per cent under the Notification G.O. (Rt.) No. 242/84/TD. The assessment was originally completed by assessing 'medical oxygen' at 5 per cent under the above notification and 'nitrous oxide' at 6 per cent under entry No. 85 of the First Schedule to the Act as it stood at the relevant time. However, the said assessment was reopened under Section 19 of the Act on the ground that 'medical oxygen' and 'nitrous oxide' are liable to be assessed at higher rates. In spite of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-28-2003
Reported in : (2004)191CTR(Ker)287; [2004]269ITR241(Ker)
G. Sivarajan J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, has filed this appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 737/Cochin of 1995, dated December 20, 1999, affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), sustaining the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'.2. While admitting the appeal, notice was ordered on the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, does Circular No. 451 dated February 17, 1986 (No. 19) (see [1986] 158 ITR 135), relied on by the assessee and the Tribunal contemplate categoric detection of concealment prior to the filing of the return ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and when the circular speaks of 'If the Income-tax Officer has already found material to show that there has been concealment, that would mean the Department has detected th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-21-2003
Reported in : (2003)184CTR(Ker)241; [2003]264ITR439(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It is an assessee under the IT Act. It feels aggrieved by Exts P7 to P12 orders passed by the Asstt. CIT, Circle I, Aluva, who is the concerned AO. They are orders assessing/reassessing income, which has escaped assessment, under Section 147 r/w Section 143(3) of the IT Act for the asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02. The petitioner has got effective statutory remedies against those orders. They are appealable under Section 246A(1)(b). The appellate authority is the CIT(A). If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeals under Section 250, it has got a further remedy of appeal to the Tribunal under Section 253(1)(a). On substantial questions of law, the petitioner has got a right of further appeal to this Court under Section 260A of the Act.2. But, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court directly by passing the statutory authorities.The ground for making suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-21-2003
Reported in : [2003]130TAXMAN546(Ker)
The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It feels aggrieved by Exhibits .P7 to P12 orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aluva who is the concerned assessing officer. They are orders assessing/reassessing income, which has escaped assessment, under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02. The petitioner has got effective statutory remedies against. those orders. They are appealable under section 246A(1)(b). The appellate authority is the Commissioner (Appeals). If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeals under section 250, it has got a further remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253(1)(a). On substantial questions of law, the petitioner has got a right of further appeal to this court under section 260A of the Act.2. But, the petitioner has chosen to app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-11-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT606
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner, the Trissur District Co-operative Bank Employees Union represented by its Secretary, filed this O.P. for directing the 2nd respondent, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, to consider Ext.P9 representation and to cancel Exts.P7 and P8 resolutions taken by the 4th respondent, the Administrator, Trissur District Cooperative Bank, and also for directing respondents 1to 6 not to grant and disburse the loan amount sanctioned as per Exts.P7, P8 and P11to the 7th respondent, Priyadarshini Co-operative Hospital Ltd. No. R 756. 2. The allegations in the petition briefly are as follows: The 5th respondent, the Trissur District Co-operative Bank was under the administration of the Administrator with effect from 4.5.2002. The 7th respondent Priyadarshini Co-operative Hospital Ltd. No.R756 was a co-operative society registered as a Hospital Society in 1986. The objectives of the above society could not be achieved even after 16 years and the above society ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-11-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT806
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19.8.2002 (Ext. Pi in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST, and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18.9.2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5.9.2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6.9.2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society - the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd., No. F(T) 28, Sri Lordan filed nomination as the nominee of the above society and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-11-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT908
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19th August, 2002 (Ext.Pl in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18th September, 2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5th September, 2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6th September, 2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society-the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No. F(T) 28 Sri. Lordan filed nomination a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-08-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT1009
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The main challenge in all these Writ Petitions is regarding the validity of the provisions of Sub-sections (2), (2A) and (2B) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') inserted by the Finance Act, 1998 (Act 14 of 1998) published in the KGEx.No.1221 dated 29.7.1998 with effect from 1.4.1998. The said sub-sections read as follows:'(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in respect of manufactured goods other than tea, which are sold under a trade mark or brand name, the sale by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the Stale shall be the first sale for the purpose of this Act.(2A). Where a dealer liable to tax under Sub-section (1), sells any goods to a trade mark or brand name holder for sale under a trade mark or brand name, no such dealer shall be liable to pay tax under the said sub-section, if he produces before the assessing authority a declaration in the prescribed form from that trade mark or brand...
Tag this Judgment!