Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.75 seconds)Section 19 in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala vs Shri M. Appukutty on 11 October, 1962
12. Based on the principles laid down as above, the Full Bench considered T.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 in page 223. In that case, subsequent to the assessment order, there was a search by the Intelligence Officer, which disclosed that turnover from certain transactions had not been assessed. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the transactions and turnover disclosed on search by the Intelligence Officer. The Full Bench observed that the power exercised by the revisional authority was strictly within the scope of Section 35 of the Act ; that no question of trenching upon the assessment of escaped turnover arises in this tax revision and that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner and sustaining his power. Thus from the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 35 of the Act has got power to set aside an assessment based on materials gathered subsequent to the assessment order even to rope in the escaped turnover provided the order is vitiated by illegality; irregularity or impropriety. The attempt of Sri S. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee was only to persuade us for a reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly the decision in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 383, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491, State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan [1970] 26 STC 251, State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty [1963] 14 STC 242, Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue [1976] 38 STC 1. All these decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be noted, were considered by the Full Bench. The principles laid down in the Full Bench decision were being followed by the statutory authorities under the Act for the last more than 22 years.
Deputy Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. on 18 February, 1969
12. Based on the principles laid down as above, the Full Bench considered T.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 in page 223. In that case, subsequent to the assessment order, there was a search by the Intelligence Officer, which disclosed that turnover from certain transactions had not been assessed. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the transactions and turnover disclosed on search by the Intelligence Officer. The Full Bench observed that the power exercised by the revisional authority was strictly within the scope of Section 35 of the Act ; that no question of trenching upon the assessment of escaped turnover arises in this tax revision and that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner and sustaining his power. Thus from the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 35 of the Act has got power to set aside an assessment based on materials gathered subsequent to the assessment order even to rope in the escaped turnover provided the order is vitiated by illegality; irregularity or impropriety. The attempt of Sri S. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee was only to persuade us for a reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly the decision in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 383, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491, State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan [1970] 26 STC 251, State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty [1963] 14 STC 242, Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue [1976] 38 STC 1. All these decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be noted, were considered by the Full Bench. The principles laid down in the Full Bench decision were being followed by the statutory authorities under the Act for the last more than 22 years.
Swastik Oil Mills Ltd vs H. B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 November, 1967
12. Based on the principles laid down as above, the Full Bench considered T.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 in page 223. In that case, subsequent to the assessment order, there was a search by the Intelligence Officer, which disclosed that turnover from certain transactions had not been assessed. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the transactions and turnover disclosed on search by the Intelligence Officer. The Full Bench observed that the power exercised by the revisional authority was strictly within the scope of Section 35 of the Act ; that no question of trenching upon the assessment of escaped turnover arises in this tax revision and that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner and sustaining his power. Thus from the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 35 of the Act has got power to set aside an assessment based on materials gathered subsequent to the assessment order even to rope in the escaped turnover provided the order is vitiated by illegality; irregularity or impropriety. The attempt of Sri S. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee was only to persuade us for a reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly the decision in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 383, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491, State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan [1970] 26 STC 251, State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty [1963] 14 STC 242, Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue [1976] 38 STC 1. All these decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be noted, were considered by the Full Bench. The principles laid down in the Full Bench decision were being followed by the statutory authorities under the Act for the last more than 22 years.
State Of Kerala vs K.E. Nainan on 29 July, 1969
12. Based on the principles laid down as above, the Full Bench considered T.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 in page 223. In that case, subsequent to the assessment order, there was a search by the Intelligence Officer, which disclosed that turnover from certain transactions had not been assessed. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the transactions and turnover disclosed on search by the Intelligence Officer. The Full Bench observed that the power exercised by the revisional authority was strictly within the scope of Section 35 of the Act ; that no question of trenching upon the assessment of escaped turnover arises in this tax revision and that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner and sustaining his power. Thus from the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 35 of the Act has got power to set aside an assessment based on materials gathered subsequent to the assessment order even to rope in the escaped turnover provided the order is vitiated by illegality; irregularity or impropriety. The attempt of Sri S. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee was only to persuade us for a reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly the decision in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 383, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491, State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan [1970] 26 STC 251, State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty [1963] 14 STC 242, Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue [1976] 38 STC 1. All these decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be noted, were considered by the Full Bench. The principles laid down in the Full Bench decision were being followed by the statutory authorities under the Act for the last more than 22 years.
State Of Kerala vs K. M. Charia Abdullah & Co on 5 October, 1964
12. Based on the principles laid down as above, the Full Bench considered T.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 in page 223. In that case, subsequent to the assessment order, there was a search by the Intelligence Officer, which disclosed that turnover from certain transactions had not been assessed. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the transactions and turnover disclosed on search by the Intelligence Officer. The Full Bench observed that the power exercised by the revisional authority was strictly within the scope of Section 35 of the Act ; that no question of trenching upon the assessment of escaped turnover arises in this tax revision and that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner and sustaining his power. Thus from the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 35 of the Act has got power to set aside an assessment based on materials gathered subsequent to the assessment order even to rope in the escaped turnover provided the order is vitiated by illegality; irregularity or impropriety. The attempt of Sri S. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee was only to persuade us for a reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly the decision in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 383, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491, State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan [1970] 26 STC 251, State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty [1963] 14 STC 242, Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue [1976] 38 STC 1. All these decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be noted, were considered by the Full Bench. The principles laid down in the Full Bench decision were being followed by the statutory authorities under the Act for the last more than 22 years.
Madras Rubber Factory Limited vs State Of Kerala on 29 March, 1989
9. The scope of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1979] 44 STC 208 in view of the conflicting views expressed by two division Benches of this Court in O. Kassim Kannu v. State of Kerala [1970J 26 STC 530 and in C.C. Transport Company v. State of Kerala [1977] 40 STC 444.
Aram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Pvt. Ltd vs Member Board Of Revenue, West Bengal on 23 April, 1976
12. Based on the principles laid down as above, the Full Bench considered T.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 in page 223. In that case, subsequent to the assessment order, there was a search by the Intelligence Officer, which disclosed that turnover from certain transactions had not been assessed. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the transactions and turnover disclosed on search by the Intelligence Officer. The Full Bench observed that the power exercised by the revisional authority was strictly within the scope of Section 35 of the Act ; that no question of trenching upon the assessment of escaped turnover arises in this tax revision and that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner and sustaining his power. Thus from the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 35 of the Act has got power to set aside an assessment based on materials gathered subsequent to the assessment order even to rope in the escaped turnover provided the order is vitiated by illegality; irregularity or impropriety. The attempt of Sri S. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee was only to persuade us for a reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly the decision in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 383, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491, State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan [1970] 26 STC 251, State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty [1963] 14 STC 242, Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue [1976] 38 STC 1. All these decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be noted, were considered by the Full Bench. The principles laid down in the Full Bench decision were being followed by the statutory authorities under the Act for the last more than 22 years.
Commissioner Of Agricultural Income ... vs Smt. Lucy Kochuvareed on 7 May, 1976
The majority decision in the above case was reversed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Lucy Kochuvareed [1976] 103 ITR 799.