Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker58
Velu Pillai, J. 1. These are one hundred and eighty-two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution preferred by operators of stage carriages on several routes in the erstwhile Travan core-Cochin State, for the issue of a writ of certiovari, or other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing the notification, TB-2/146G7/57/PW dated 24-9-1957, made by Government, by virtue of the power conferred on them by Section 18(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, referred to hereinafter as the Act. The Act has provided for the levy of a tax on every vehicle using any public road in the Travancore-Cochin area, and has prescribed in Schedules I and III thereof the maximum tax leviable for each class of vehicles. Section 3, Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of the Act authorised Government, to specify, by notification inter alia the rate at which, the tax shall be levied for each class of vehicles, which, under the proviso to that section, 'shall not exceed the maxima specified i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker77; [1966]60ITR737(Ker)
Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwad and the petitioner in O. P. 684 of 1959 was the karnavan of a Namboodiri Illom, and they seek to quash the assessments of their families under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In doing so, they have challenged inter alia the constitutionality of the Act, as having; been passed by Parliament without the requisite legislative power under Entry 86 of List I of the seventh schedule and in particular, the validity of the charging Section, Section. 3, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The former contention was repelled and the latter was accepted, by the judgment delivered by a division bench of this Court on the 21st July, 1961. On appeals preferred against that judgment by the Revenue, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded these and the-other petitions which were all heard together. Of the two contentions formulated above, the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]241ITR753(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that levy of interest cannot be made under Sections 234A and 234B without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not levy of interest under Section 234A and 234B (and under the earlier provisions) automatic and axiomatic ?'2. As the questions referred are purely of law, detailed reference to factual position is unnecessary. Stated in brief, the same is as follows: The asses-see is a partnership firm carrying on business in paper, paper products, office stationery, etc. For the assessment year 1991-92, it filed a return of income on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2000)158CTR(Ker)551; [2000]242ITR263(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Though in I. T. R. No. III of 1998, a question of vital importance has been raised about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reconsider a question of limitation, while exercising powers under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), we do not think it necessary to go into that question in detail in view of the position as emerges in connected I. T. R. No. 174 of 1997. Reference to the factual aspects is necessary for adjudication of the question raised in that I. T. R., which we shall quote a little later.2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1986-87 on February 9, 1989, declaring a total income of Rs. 83,54,950. In response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, books of account were produced and finally the income was assessed at Rs. 1,45,06,670. The demand after adjustment of advance tax and taking into account interest payable underSections 139(8), 215 and 216 came to Rs. 52,91,476. The matter was challenged in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1954CriLJ895
Koshi, C.J.1. Narayana Pillai Balakrishna Pillai of Kochu Veedu (Thenguvila), Mushanodi Muri, Thodiyoor Pakuthy, Karunagappally Taluk, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Qullon of two offences of murder and sentenced to death. The condemned prisoner, who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 110 challenging the conviction and the sentence. Referred Trial No. 9 is the proceeding arising from the submission by the learned Judge of the records of the case under Section 374, Criminal P. C., for confirmation of the sentence of death.2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 4-30 p.m. on 30-3-1952 the accused caused the death of his wife Devaki Amma and her 55 days' old child by cutting them with a chopper and otherwise inflicting injuries on them, with the chopper and by kicking etc. The facts of the case, the stages the case passed through before the trial commenced and the plea raised by the accused at the trial are all cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1957]8STC854(Ker)
1. The petitioner is a tobacco licensee (A class) whose turnover has been estimated at Rs. 1,20,000 in respect of the accounting period, 1st January, 1952,10 31st March, 1952, and at Rs.6,24,000 in respect of the accounting period, 1st April, 1952, to 31st March, 1953. The correctness of the estimate is not disputed and the petitioner admits liability to sales tax 'at the rate of three pies for every Indian rupee in such turnover' as directed by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin' General Sales Tax Act, 1125.2. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, provides :-Subject as aforesaid, the sale of any of the goods mentioned below shall be subject to a tax at the rate specified in respect thereof, at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed ; and the tax shall be paid by the dealer concerned on his turnover in each year relating to such goods and shall be in addition to the tax to which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1957Ker146; [1957]8STC347(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner (Cannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) (Private) Ltd., was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Mattancherry, on a total turnover of Rs. 2,23,197 in respect of the period 1-4-1955 to 31-3-1956. A portion of the said turnover, viz., Rs. 1,96,486 relates to 'works contracts' and it is the liability to assessment of that portion of the turnover that is challenged before us.2. Ext. A, the order of assessment dated 31-10-1956, shows that the sum of Rs. 1,96,486 was arrived at as follows:'M.E. S. Department Willigdon Island.Rs.1,26.546-0-0PowerHouse construction at Per-unjalkuthu.Rs.1,04,762-0-0CaltexPetrol Pump at Ernakulam.Rs. 19,058-0-0 30,328-0-0Rs,2,80,694-0-0Less 80%' ... ... ...RS. 84,208-0-0BalanceturnoverRs.1,96,486-0-03. Section 2 (1) of the Travahcore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 defines the expression 'works contract' as follows:''works contract' means any agreement for carrying out for cash or for deferred payment or othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker280; [1957]8STC817(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner, the Kerala Arecanut Company,Kokala, Trichur, is a registered firm consisting of three partners. The 1st respondent is the State of Travancore-Cochin, and the 2nd, the Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Trichur.2. Article 286(2) of the Constitution as it stood before the Sixth Amendment (excluding the proviso) read as follows:'Except in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, no law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce'and the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the transactions with which we are concerned took place, 'in the course of inter-State trade or commerce' and are as a result exempt from taxation under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125.3. The assessment order impugned is Ext. C, an order of the 2nd respondent dated 24-11-1955. The order is not challenged o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker129
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioners are Stockists or 'A' Class licensees under the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Travancore Tobacco Act, I of 1087, and published in theTravancore-Cochin Government Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated the 25th January 1951.2. Rule 14 of the Rules provides that 'the vend of tobacco of all kinds is prohibited throughout the State, except under a licence'; Rule 15 that the 'licence for the vend of tobacco shall be of the following descriptions :--'(i) Stockist or 'A' Class license, (ii) Wholesale or 'B' Class license and (iii) Retail or 'C' Class license'; and Rule 16 (1) and (11): (1) Holders of Stockist or 'A' Class licensees shall be entitled to purchase tobacco from any dealer within or without the State without any quantitative restriction. This class of licensees shall sell only to other 'A' Class licensees or to 'B' Class licensees. (ii) The annual fee for these licenses shall be as follows: -- Variety of tobaccosto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1959]35ITR787(Ker)
VARADARAJA IYENGAR, J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench B under section 113(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121, corresponding to section 66(1) of the Indian Act. The question referred is : 'Whether the remittance of Rs. 25,262 out of the profits made by the assessee in the years preceding the Samvat year 2003 as a resident of Bombay and (not as a resident of Travancore) could be included under section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Travancore Income-tax Act in computing the total income of the year of account in which he commenced to be a resident of Travancore ?' The assessment is for the year 1125 M. E. in respect of the accounting period, Samvat year 2004. The assessee became a resident in Travancore in Samvat year 2003. He had previously been carrying on business at Bombay, that is, outside the Travancore state and so made profits to the extent of Rs. 46,613 for the Samvat years 1999 to 20004. A sum of Rs. 45,000 out of this was remitted into the...
Tag this Judgment!