Skip to main content

24 years on, HC finds AC room is not cold storage

It took the judiciary 24 years to declare that an air conditioner makes a room cool and does not turn it into a cold storage.

This happened in a case pertaining to a city-based trading firm, Gokaldas Trading Co, which is a commission agent of chocolates, tomato ketchup and other food items. This firm had 10 employees and an AC was installed in the manager's room.

Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) declared it a factory saying it had more than 10 employees and was carrying out manufacturing with the aid of power. It showed an AC as the instrument used in the manufacturing activity.

ESIC concluded that according to Section 2K(vi) of the Factories Act, by employing more than 10 persons and preserving and storing food articles in a cold storage, which is a manufacturing activity, the firm fell in the category of a factory. With this, ESIC sent a notice to the firm, asking it to pay Rs 68,278 as tax from 1983 and 1988.

After due communication with ESIC, the firm filed an application before an ESI court in 1991. This court dismissed the plea requesting that ESI Act should not be made applicable to it merely on the ground that an AC was installed in the manager's room. The firm moved the Gujarat high court in 1994 and argued that the AC was not meant to preserve food items, which were kept in a different room. The AC was used during office hours.

ESIC argued the manager was receiving a salary of just Rs 1,100 and no company would bother to provide AC facility to an employee with such a meager salary. It insisted that the AC was used to keep articles in cold storage.

After hearing the case, the HC said, "This court is of the opinion that the court below (ESI court) committed an error while giving the finding that chocolates, bournvita etc. are preserved in the AC room and the manager's AC chamber is a cold storage."

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/24-years-on-HC-finds-AC-room-is-not-cold-storage/articleshow/49575100.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more