Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: kerala Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.035 seconds)

Mar 04 1968 (HC)

E.A. Thomman and anr. Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam and an ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-04-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker130

govindan nair, j.1. these writ applications were heard along with a batch of other writ applications where common questions have been raised. it is agreed that the decision in these cases will govern the other petitions as well.2. the petitioners in these writ applications are all 'operators' within the meaning of that term as defined in section 2 (b) of the kerala motor vehicles (taxation of passengers and goods) act, 1963, (hereinafter called 'the act'). they impugn the validity of the act. the grounds on which the act is challenged may be grouped under five heads; (a) the enactment though it purports to be under item 56 of list ii of the seventh schedule to the constitution, really does not fall within the ambit of that entry; in fact it has trespassed on legislative powers vested with the union parliament and is a colourable piece of legislation and is incompetent; (b) the act violates part xiii of the constitution, particularly article 301 thereof, and does not satisfy the requirements of article 304 (b); (c) the act infringes article 14 of the constitution; (d) that it is against the provisions in article 19(1)(g); and finally (e) that even if the act is construed to have imposed the burden of the tax on the 'goods and passengers' it is still ineffective because of lack of provisions in the statute or rules made thereunder for collection of the tax from the passenger and/or the owner of the goods.3. we shall deal with these arguments serially. but before doing so, it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1968 (HC)

The State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Annam and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-01-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker38

madhavan nair, j.1. writ appeal no. 30 of 1968 is by the state against the judgment' dated february 8, 1968, of gopalan nambiyar, j., in o. p. no. 4134 of 1967, wherein the kerala rice and paddy (procurement by levy) order, 1966, and clause 4 of the kerala paddy and rice (declaration and requisitioning of stocks) order, 1966, have been held violative of constitutional provisions. the two orders will be referred to here-inbelpw as 'the levy order' and 'the declaration order' adopting the short-names used by the learned judge.2. the petitioners in the above-said o. p. (a mother and son) are admittedly cultivators of paddy in 30.49 acres of land -- according to the state they cultivate 34.91 acres -- who challenged the levy order which compels them to sell paddy to government on a graduated scale according to acreage against payment of price not exceeding the maximum price fixed by the government, and the declaration order under which they might be compelled to declare the paddy in their possession or control and to sell it to the government, as unconstitutional. by consent of parties, this o. p. was heard by the learned judge, along with 720 others that challenged the above-said orders as also the kerala paddy (maximum prices) order, 1965, and the kerala rice (maximum prices) order, 1965 -- hereinafter 'the maximum prices orders' -- on 'the question of the constitutional validity of the orders' as a 'preliminary point' and by a judgment common for ail the 721 o. ps. the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1968 (HC)

Smt. Kadija Bai, CochIn Vs. the Wealth Tax Officer, A. Ward, Mattanche ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-23-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker69

raman nayar, j. 1. the petitioner, an owner of non-agricultural land and buildings in mattancherry, cochin, protests against the levy of what has been called additional wealth-tax, to the extent of rs. 1800/- and odd, made on her under clause (c) of paragraph a read with rules 1 and 2 of paragraph b of part i of the schedule to the wealth tax act, 1957 -- for short, the act. she attacks the levy as discriminatory and therefore violative of article 14 of the constitution, and she seeks to have it quashed by this application brought under article 226 of the constitution.2. the legislative entry authorising the imposition of the tax is entry 86 of the union list, 'taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies.' and the law that actually imposes the tax is the charging section of the act, namely, section 3 which says that a tax called wealth-tax shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of the act in respect of the net wealth of every individual. hindu undivided family, and company at the rates specified in the schedule to the act. net wealth, according to section 2(m) of the act, is the amount by which the aggregate value of the assets of a person exceeds the aggregate value of his debts, and, by section 2(e) agricultural land and certain other assets are excluded from the scope of the word, 'assets'. section 7 says that, subject to any rules made in that behalf, the value of any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1968 (HC)

Smt. Kadija Bai Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, A-ward, Mattanchery.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-23-1968

Reported in : [1969]71ITR114(Ker)

raman nayar j. - the petitioner, an owner of non-agricultural land and buildings in mattancherry, cochin, protests against the levy of what has been called additional wealth-tax, to the extent of rs. 1,800 and odd made on her under clause (c) of paragraph a read with rule 1 and 2 of paragraph b of part 1 of the schedule to the wealth-tax act, 1957-for short, the act. she attacks the levy as discriminatory and, therefore, violative of article 14 of the constitution and she seeks to have it quashed by this application brought under article 226 of the constitution.the legislative entry authorizing the imposition of the tax in entry 86 of the union list, 'taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural, land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies.' and the law that actually imposed the tax is the charging section of the act, namely, section 3, which says that a tax called wealth-tax shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of the act in respect of the net wealth of every individual, hindu undivided family, and company at the rates specified in the schedule to the act. net wealth, according to section 2(m) of the act, is the amount by which the aggregate value of the assets of a person exceeds the aggregate value of his debts, and by section 2(e), agricultural land and certain other assets are excluded from the scope of the word 'assets'. section 7 says that, subject to any rules made in that behalf, the value of any asset, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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