Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The State of Mysore Vs. A.K. Khoja and ors.

The State of Mysore vs A.K. Khoja and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Aug 07, 1967
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/373628

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.T.R.P. No. 27, 28, 34, 35 and 36 of 1967
Subject
Sales Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Sections 9 & 10 :[P.D.Dinakaran, C.J. & V.G.Sabhahit,J] Alternation of memorandum Procedure - Amendment into bye-laws of societies - In order to conduct Special General Body Meeting notice has been served to all members - However, said notice was not accompa...

Key legal issue
Sales Tax
Acts & sections
Sales Tax Act - Sections 20(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The State of Mysore

Advocate Shantaraju, Adv. for E.S. Venkataramiah, High Court Special Government Pleader

Respondent

A.K. Khoja and ors.

Legal References

Acts
Sales Tax Act - Sections 20(1)
Reported In
[1968]21STC354(Kar)

Excerpt

- karnataka societies registration act, 1960 (17 of 1960) sections 9 & 10 :[p.d.dinakaran, c.j. & v.g.sabhahit,j] alternation of memorandum procedure - amendment into bye-laws of societies - in order to conduct special general body meeting notice has been served to all members - however, said notice was not accompanied by proposed amendment - every resolution has to be passed by members - special general body meeting notice should contain written or printed report of proposed amendment held, mandatory requirements not complied with. also votes casted were less than three times number of votes cast against resolution. meeting convened held to be contrary to act . registration of amended bye-laws is not proper. - 1. we dismiss these five revision petitions since we are not satisfied that they are fit cases for admission.somnath iyer, j.1. we dismiss these five revision petitions since we are not satisfied that they are fit cases for admission. the admitted tax payable by the dealer under the second proviso to section 20(1) of the sales tax act as it stood before its amendment, was the tax payable on the turnover admitted by him in the return produced by him. the fact that he did not appeal from one part of the assessment order made by the commercial tax officer does not mean that the tax determined by the commercial tax officer in respect of which there was no appeal was tax which the dealer admitted to be due. the tax becomes payable in that contingency in respect of that matter, not because there was an admission by the dealer but because there was a determination by the commercial tax officer. the contention urged before us overlooks the distinction between an admission and an adjudication. in our opinion, the sales tax appellate tribunal was right in taking the view that no further tax was payable under the second proviso to section 20(1). we therefore dismiss these revision petitions. 2. petitions dismissed.

Full Judgment

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. We dismiss these five revision petitions since we are not satisfied that they are fit cases for admission. The admitted tax payable by the dealer under the second proviso to section 20(1) of the Sales Tax Act as it stood before its amendment, was the tax payable on the turnover admitted by him in the return produced by him. The fact that he did not appeal from one part of the assessment order made by the Commercial Tax Officer does not mean that the tax determined by the Commercial Tax Officer in respect of which there was no appeal was tax which the dealer admitted to be due. The tax becomes payable in that contingency in respect of that matter, not because there was an admission by the dealer but because there was a determination by the Commercial Tax Officer. The contention urged before us overlooks the distinction between an admission and an adjudication. In our opinion, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in taking the view that no further tax was payable under the second proviso to section 20(1). We therefore dismiss these revision petitions.

2. Petitions dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial