Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1995Ker307
ORDERD.J. Jaganadha Raju, J. 1. This batch of 10 Original Petitions are filed questioning the constitutional validity of several of the provisions of the Kerala Raw Cashew Nuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, 1981 (Act 14/81), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In O.P. Nos. 3267, 1364 and 6080 of 1994, the validity of the entire Act is challenged, and it is claimed that the entire Act should be struck down. It is contended that if several of the provisions which are unconstitutional are struck down, the remaining portion of the Act cannot stand. Hence the entire Act has to be declared as unconstitutional and invalid. In O.P. Nos. 3545/90, 1704/91 and 12189 of 1994, the main attack is against certain provisions of the Act which are considered to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. There is also a prayer to declare the entire Act as invalid and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. In O.P. No. 9506/92 the attack is against the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5, 19, 20 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1975]35STC478(Ker)
V. Khalid, J.1. The questions of law raised before us in this tax revision case are:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the rejection of accounts and deleting the addition of 25 per cent made by the Sales Tax Officer ?(2) Whether the rejection of accounts is proper ?(3) Whether the addition made is sustainable ?2. The petitioner returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 37,894.07 and Rs. 37,592.71 respectively, for the year 1969-70. The assessee, a partnership firm-M/s. Central Automobiles, Pazhavangadi, Tri-vandrum-are dealers in automobiles. Their accounts were called for, and on scrutiny, the following defects were noted :(1) There was neither an opening stock list nor a closing stock list.(2) The sales turnover reported for 1969-70 was very low.(3) No satisfactory explanation was given for the steep fall in the purchases as well as in the sales of the prev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ309Ker
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. The appellant conducted business in four toddy shops in the years 1987-88. He was governed by the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1969, under which he was bound to pay certain contributions to the Toddy Welfare Fund, in his capacity as an employer. A scheme has also been framed under the Act. Demands have been made for the amounts due by the appellant towards the employer's contribution and revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated. At that stage, he filed O.P. No. 6033 of 1989 challenging the validity of the Act itself. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal.2. The only contention urged by counsel for the appellant is that Sections 4 and 5 of the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, Act 22 of 1969, impose a tax which is beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature. He submits it is a compulsory exaction of money partaking the character of a tax and as there is no entry in List II e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ304Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Two common questions arise for determination in these cases, viz. (1) whether the amendment brought to the General Rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) as per notification G.O.(P) N0.57/1992/P&ARD; dated December 5, 1992 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Rules) Department of the Government of Kerala would take away the rights of the petitioners in the Original Petitions for appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers? (2) when the Special Rules clearly speak of the method of recruitment, whether any amendment to the General Rules, which go in conflict with the Special Rules, will hamper the rights of persons arising out of the special rules.O.P. No. 13871 of 1997.2. The petitioners in this Original petition applied for selection to the post of Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax Department pursuant to the notification published in the gazett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(4)KLT17(SN)(C.No.19)
K. Vinod Chandran,J: 1. Interesting questions regarding the scope and ambit of circulars issued with the purpose of plugging evasion, in deciding the question of tax liability and the invocation of powers of estimation of turnover and the resultant quantification of tax evaded for the purposes of determining penalty are raised in the above revision. 2. The facts are not in dispute and suffice it to say that the dealer, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of timber, imports the same into the State of Kerala and sells it within the State. At the entry check post, as is prescribed by Circular No.28/2008 dated 19.06.2008 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, each consignment is required to be cleared after payment of advance tax at the floor rate prescribed therein for each variety of timber. The assessee having paid the same, brought it to the business premises/yards from where subsequent sales were effected within the State of Kerala, attracting tax under the Kerala Value Add...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 6657/2018 SHIVANI Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal and Mr. Amit Prakash ........ Petitioner Shahi, Advs. versus EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION ...... Respondent Through: Mr. V.K. Singh and Ms. Nisha Hans, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT1507.2019 The petitioner, who is an insured person, within the meaning % 1. of clause (14) in Section 2 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act) seeks, by means of the present writ petition, issuance of a writ of mandamus, to the respondent-Employee State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ESIC), to issue, to her ward Ms. Ashi, a Ward of Insured Persons Certificate, so as to enable her to secure admission, in the MBBS course in an Institute affiliated to the ESIC, for the academic session 2018-2019. Inasmuch as, during the pendency of this w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (1994)50ITD14(Bang.)
1. Since the only issue in the two appeals in the case of M/s. Canara Bank and the most important issue in the other three appeals, relating to the other two assessees also being banks, is the same, these five appeals have been consolidated and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.2. All these appeals are Departmental appeals filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the additions of the large amounts of the nature of interest on sticky loans. So far as M/s. Vysya Bank Ltd. is concerned, the Assessing Officer discusses in the assessment orders for the two years that the assessee-bank had stated in its letter dated 5-2-1990 that it had stopped charging interest on doubtful debts from the assessment year 1987-88 and instead, as and when the interest was recovered or written off as bad debts, the amount in the suspense account was reduced. The Assessing Officer considered the method adopted by the assessee being not acceptable to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
N.C. Jain, J. 1. This judgment of ours would dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 8 of 1996, 9 of 1996, 2 of 1997 and 7 of 1997, Counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts of the case be picked up from Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996 (CIT, N. E. Region, Shillong v. Smt. Pratima Saha). In the said Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996 the following questions have been referred : Assessment year 1987-88 ; '1. Whether, qn the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the salary income of the assessee from the firm in which her spouse has substantial interest is not includible in the assessment of the spouse under Section 64(1)(ii) of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 27 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the asses-see could be deemed to be the owner of the house property which was transferred by her spouse to her ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR259; 1998(3)BomCR590
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in all petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith.Writ Petition No. 1761 of 1997 is preferred by the company against the order dated 25th September, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The company has been restrained temporarily to act on the V.R.S. application or to refuse to allot work and to pay wages to enlisted workers till further orders with a further direction that the 55 (fifty-five) enlisted employees be allowed to work and be paid wages subject to deposit of their cheques with the respondent company.Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1997 has been preferred by the Union claiming to represent the workers employed by the company, being the only trade union of employees of the petitioner company. The reliefs in the petition amongst others are to restrain the company from acting on the V.R.S. announced by notice dated 8th August, 1997; restrain the company from selling, disposing or in any manner alienating the plant, machinery,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)ILLJ379Bom
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petition raises an interesting question of law of considerable importance. Does the Industrial Tribunal have the power to grant interim reliefs, including in the nature of injunctions, in a complaint filed before it under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union. Its members are workmen employed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal who passed the impugned Order. 3. The settlement arrived at between the parties on 20th November, 1991, was due to expire on 30th September, 1995. The petitioner had served a notice of termination dated 29th July, 1995, on respondent No. 1. By a letter dated 15th February, 1996, the petitioner as the sole bargaining agent of the workmen of respondent No. 1 served its Charter of Demands on respondent No. 1. The Charter of Demands was in respect of conditions of service of the workmen of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 in turn ...
Tag this Judgment!