Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1997]225ITR686(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Revenue. The following is the question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on an interpretation of Section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are as follows : The respondent/assessee-company was being held to be a charitable institution entitled to claim exemption under Section 11(1) till the assessment year 1983-84. For the year 1984-85, the assessing authority took the view that the company is not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1) in respect of the income earned from its kury business in view of the introduction of Section 11(4A). The assessee has computed its net profit from kury business at Rs. 2,64,939 and deducted the amount spent for charity, scholarship, etc., from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Whether the dictum in 2001(2) KLT 840 (M/s. Chakkiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, as to the liability of the petitioners to satisfy tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 has lost its significance in virtue of the amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per Act 54 of 1994, particularly defining the terms 'semi-trailer' and 'trailer' under Sections 2(39) and 2(46) respectively (so as to absolve the petitioners from the liability) is the point sought to be projected. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the amendment is 'clarificatory' in nature and hence, though it was introduced as per the Act 54 of 1994, w.e.f. 14.11.1994, it should be applicable right from the beginning and the petitioners are not liable to satisfy any tax in respect of the 'chassis' as depicted in Ext.P1. 2. Both the petitioners are shipping and transporting agents, undertaking loading and unloading of cargo into and from the Vessels in the 'wharf' area of Cochin ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT862
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the petroleum dealers owning tanker lorries for the purpose of lifting petroleum products from the installations of the petroleum companies to the retail outlets are not transporting undertakings for the purpose of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 or the Welfare Fund Scheme there under and are not, therefore, liable to pay any contribution under the said Act and the Scheme. A writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to desist from insisting on payment of such contribution as a pre-condition for receiving quarterly tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is also sought for.2. Heard Adv. Sri. B. Suresh Kumar on behalf of the petitioners and Sri. John Joseph Vettikkad on behalf of the first respondent State of Kerala.3. The Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Welfare Fund Act') was made to provide for the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]69STC119(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This batch of writ petitions is by the owners of hotels and restaurants, some of them bar attached and others classified as 'star hotels' having above two stars. The petitioners challenge the validity of the Kerala Finance Act 18 of 1987 in so far as it relates to the imposition of sales tax on item 67 of the First Schedule and item 4 of the Fifth Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act ('the Act' for short). Section 2(2) of the Finance Act amends Section 6(1) substituting Clauses (ii) and (iii) by Clauses (ii) to (v) introduced by the amendment. The Schedules to the Act are also amended and the Fifth Schedule is introduced by amending Sub-section (1) of Section 6. The Finance Act 18 of 1987 received the assent of the Governor of Kerala on the 20th of August, 1987 and was published in the Gazette on the same day. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 1, the Finance Act, 1987 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of July, 1987. The Act as i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1989)76CTR(Ker)139; [1989]176ITR481(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. Timber, tobacco and liquor have been subjected to discriminatory and oppressive taxation--this is the chorus of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. A serious contention so urged, challenging the very constitutionality of a taxing statute, needs careful consideration.2. The petitioners have one thing in common : They have been the victims of an amendment to the Income-tax Act, 1961, brought about by the Finance Act, 1988, which has introduced Sections 44AC and 206C to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Their contentions are substantially common : The impost of the tax is inflexibly fixed under this provision. The income assessed depends not on the actuality of the situation ; it is fixed at a percentage of the purchase price of the commodities, be it an alcoholic beverage of the kind described or beedi leaves or timber bid at auctions held by the State from out of its forest reserves. The tax is really not on income, but on the purchase price ; the tax really part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1993LC383(Kerala); 1993(66)ELT351(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The question for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner, the Collector of Customs Kochi is liable to pay sales tax under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act) in respect of the sales of confiscated and unclaimed goods. The Government of Kerala informed the petitioner of his liability by the letter Ext. P1 dated May 12,1988 and that led to this writ petition.2. Petitioner is the Collector of Customs, Kochi who is discharging statutory duties and functions under the Customs Act, 1962. In the course of those duties and function, he comes into possession of goods which are either confiscated ones or those remaining unclaimed. The provisions for confiscation of goods are contained in Chapter XIV of the Customs Act, and Section 126 provides that when any goods are confiscated under the said Act, such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government. It is these goods which are confiscated, and goods which come into the possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(2)KLT502
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, challenges the constitutional validity of Section 15 and also Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Cheranellur-Fort Kochi, on the strength of a regular permit, granted to his vehicle KL-7/AN-6074. The tax in respect of the said vehicle for the quarter ending on 31.03.2006 has to be paid on or before 31.01.2006. A grace period is allowed upto 14.02.2006, i.e., for operating the stage carriage or keeping it in operation, he has to pay the tax on or before 14.02.2006. If tax is not paid within the said time limit, he will be liable to pay penal interest. Apart from that, non-payment of tax is an offence, punishable under Section 16 of the above said Act. If there is default to pay tax, the same can be recovered, invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT816
P.R. Raman, J.1. The challenge made in this batch of Writ Petitions/Writ Appeal is against the amendment brought out to Section 6(1)(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 2006 (Act 22/2006). Though the amended Act was passed and assent of the Governor was obtained on 24.10.2006, it was given retrospective effect from 1.7.2006. As per Section 6(1)(f) of the Act thus amended, the rate of tax in the case of transfer of goods involved in the execution of works contract, where the transfer is not in the form of goods, but in some other form, tax payable is increased to 12.5% as against the 4% as it stood prior to the amendment. Prior to the amendment, where the goods incorporated in the works contract are separately ascertainable, the tax was levied at the rates applicable to the goods and where the goods incorporated in the works contract are not separately ascertainable, at the rate of 12.5 % at all points of sale. Though the grounds urged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker298
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The respective petitioners in these two petitions, challenge the validity of Section 12 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, --Act XIV/1950 as well as a notification dated 28th April 1953 issued by the T. C. State Government directing the levy of tolls on vehicles using the bridge across the Meenachil river at Palai on the Ponkunnam-Lalam road.2. The petitioner in 0. P. 404/60, represented by the learned counsel Sri. P. Govindan Hair, states that the petitioner is engaged in the business of transport service and is an operator of stage carriage services, and inparticular, it is operating a stage carriage KLR 310 on the route from Palai to Vandanmada in the Kottayam District. The petitioner further avers that the said bus has to pass over the bridge at Palai, constructed on the Meenachil river, by the State Government. At the northernend of the bridge, a toll gate has been established by the State Government and it is leasing out annually the rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1980]45STC79(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These writ petitions attack the constitutional validity of the Madras General Sales Tax (Revival and Special Provisions) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 14 of 1971), and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of its provisions. The position may be understood with respect to the facts in 0. P. Nos. 2391 and 3243 of 1973, which were the two writ petitions argued, the others being left to abide the fate of these writ petitions.2. In O.P. No. 2391 of 1973, the petitioner, the Malayalam Plantations Limited, Cochin, is a company incorporated in England having its registered office in London. M/s. Harrisons and Crosfield Limited are the secretaries and agents of the company. It owns tea and rubber estates. By exhibit P1 order dated 23rd March, 1960, it was assessed to sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, in respect of the assessment year 1957-58. By the decision of this Court in Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala [1963] 14 S.T.C. 969, it was held ...
Tag this Judgment!