Skip to content


Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Raju Engineering Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Case No. 2 of 1958
Judge
Reported in[1960]11STC169(Ker)
AppellantDeputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax
RespondentRaju Engineering Co.
Appellant AdvocateThe Government Pleader
Respondent Advocate T.N. Subramonia Iyer and; S. Subramonia Iyer, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredMadras v. Gannon Dunkerley
Excerpt:
- contempt of courts act, 1971 -- sections 20 & 2(b); [j.b. koshy, a.k. basheer & k.p. balachandran, jj] civil contempt limitation under section 20 held, aggrieved party should file an application within one year of date of contempt. date of application will be considered as date on which contempt proceedings were initiated. where the application was filed within one month from the date of contempt and the court delayed posting of case for more than four years for no fault of the petitioner, the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies. petition is not barred by limitation. .....in the state, of madras v. gannon dunkerley & co. (madras) ltd. a.i.r. 1958 s.c. 560. therefore the decision of the tribunal is correct that the taxing authorities cannot levy any tax in exercise of the authority to, charge such agreements as sales. the petition questions the jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal to hold ultra vires parts of the statute, under which it has been set up; but any decision on the two questions framed for the purpose would not result in the petition being allowed and they can be decided in an appropriate case. the assessee before us being under no liability because of the aforesaid pronouncement by the supreme court, the revision petition is dismissed, but without costs.
Judgment:

M.A. Ansari, J.

1. The decision, on the questions raised in the petition, would be unnecessary; because the view, that works contracts can be included in the definition of sale for purposes of sales tax, has been finally held as incorrect by the Supreme Court in The State, of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 560. Therefore the decision of the Tribunal is correct that the taxing authorities cannot levy any tax in exercise of the authority to, charge such agreements as sales. The petition questions the jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal to hold ultra vires parts of the statute, under which it has been set up; but any decision on the two questions framed for the purpose would not result in the petition being allowed and they can be decided in an appropriate case. The assessee before us being under no liability because of the aforesaid pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the revision petition is dismissed, but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //