Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.
Decided On : Mar-13-1978
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co operative Society, Yadgiri and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDERVenkataramiah', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'Yadgiri', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J. 1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '374555', 'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 13(3)', 'appealno' => 'S.T.R.P. Nos. 44 to 49 of 1975', 'appellant' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 227: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860[C.A.No.45/1860] Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.G. Doddakale Gowda, I Additional Government Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.S. Ramabhadran and ;V.T. Raya Reddy, Advs.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1978-03-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'E.S. Venkataramiah and ;M.N. Venkatachaliah, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramiah, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The common question which arises in these petitions is whether the Commercial Tax Officer can apply to the Magistrate having jurisdiction under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of arrears of sales tax from an assessee under the Act, who is a defaulter, without exhausting the other modes of recovery provided under the Act. The learned Magistrate, Yadgiri, has, in the cases out of which these petitions arise, dismissed the applications made under section 13(3)(b) of the Act on the sole ground that the applicant had not exhausted the other remedies available to him under law for recovery of the tax due. We do not agree with the construction placed by the learned Magistrate on section 13(3)(b) of the Act. What that provision says is that an application could be made to a Magistrate for recovery of sales tax due from a defaulter without prejudice to the other remedies open to the applicant. It does not mean that he can approach the Magistrate only after exhausting the other modes of recovery available under law. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate against which these petitions have been filed are, therefore, set aside. He is directed to take the applications back on his file and to dispose them of in accordance with law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petition allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1979]44STC39(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '374555' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co operative Society, Yadgiri and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDERVenkataramiah', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'Yadgiri', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J. 1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '374555', 'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 13(3)', 'appealno' => 'S.T.R.P. Nos. 44 to 49 of 1975', 'appellant' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 227: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860[C.A.No.45/1860] Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.G. Doddakale Gowda, I Additional Government Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.S. Ramabhadran and ;V.T. Raya Reddy, Advs.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1978-03-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'E.S. Venkataramiah and ;M.N. Venkatachaliah, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramiah, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The common question which arises in these petitions is whether the Commercial Tax Officer can apply to the Magistrate having jurisdiction under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of arrears of sales tax from an assessee under the Act, who is a defaulter, without exhausting the other modes of recovery provided under the Act. The learned Magistrate, Yadgiri, has, in the cases out of which these petitions arise, dismissed the applications made under section 13(3)(b) of the Act on the sole ground that the applicant had not exhausted the other remedies available to him under law for recovery of the tax due. We do not agree with the construction placed by the learned Magistrate on section 13(3)(b) of the Act. What that provision says is that an application could be made to a Magistrate for recovery of sales tax due from a defaulter without prejudice to the other remedies open to the applicant. It does not mean that he can approach the Magistrate only after exhausting the other modes of recovery available under law. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate against which these petitions have been filed are, therefore, set aside. He is directed to take the applications back on his file and to dispose them of in accordance with law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petition allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1979]44STC39(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '374555' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co operative Society, Yadgiri and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDERVenkataramiah', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'Yadgiri', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J. 1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '374555', 'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 13(3)', 'appealno' => 'S.T.R.P. Nos. 44 to 49 of 1975', 'appellant' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 227: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860[C.A.No.45/1860] Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.G. Doddakale Gowda, I Additional Government Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.S. Ramabhadran and ;V.T. Raya Reddy, Advs.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1978-03-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'E.S. Venkataramiah and ;M.N. Venkatachaliah, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramiah, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The common question which arises in these petitions is whether the Commercial Tax Officer can apply to the Magistrate having jurisdiction under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of arrears of sales tax from an assessee under the Act, who is a defaulter, without exhausting the other modes of recovery provided under the Act. The learned Magistrate, Yadgiri, has, in the cases out of which these petitions arise, dismissed the applications made under section 13(3)(b) of the Act on the sole ground that the applicant had not exhausted the other remedies available to him under law for recovery of the tax due. We do not agree with the construction placed by the learned Magistrate on section 13(3)(b) of the Act. What that provision says is that an application could be made to a Magistrate for recovery of sales tax due from a defaulter without prejudice to the other remedies open to the applicant. It does not mean that he can approach the Magistrate only after exhausting the other modes of recovery available under law. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate against which these petitions have been filed are, therefore, set aside. He is directed to take the applications back on his file and to dispose them of in accordance with law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petition allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1979]44STC39(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '374555' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co operative Society, Yadgiri and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDERVenkataramiah', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 3 => 'Magistrate', (int) 4 => 'Yadgiri', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J. 1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '374555', 'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 13(3)', 'appealno' => 'S.T.R.P. Nos. 44 to 49 of 1975', 'appellant' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 227: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860[C.A.No.45/1860] Section 120-B r/w Section 420: [R.B. Naik, J] Offence under Section 12 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Revision against rejection of application for discharge - Allegations of abuse of official position - Sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - Conspiracy and Criminal misconduct - Financial loss to the complainant Bank - Material on record to proceed against the accused - Held, Since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the Court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. With the material available on record, the Court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.G. Doddakale Gowda, I Additional Government Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'K.S. Ramabhadran and ;V.T. Raya Reddy, Advs.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1978-03-13', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'E.S. Venkataramiah and ;M.N. Venkatachaliah, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramiah, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The common question which arises in these petitions is whether the Commercial Tax Officer can apply to the Magistrate having jurisdiction under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of arrears of sales tax from an assessee under the Act, who is a defaulter, without exhausting the other modes of recovery provided under the Act. The learned Magistrate, Yadgiri, has, in the cases out of which these petitions arise, dismissed the applications made under section 13(3)(b) of the Act on the sole ground that the applicant had not exhausted the other remedies available to him under law for recovery of the tax due. We do not agree with the construction placed by the learned Magistrate on section 13(3)(b) of the Act. What that provision says is that an application could be made to a Magistrate for recovery of sales tax due from a defaulter without prejudice to the other remedies open to the applicant. It does not mean that he can approach the Magistrate only after exhausting the other modes of recovery available under law. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate against which these petitions have been filed are, therefore, set aside. He is directed to take the applications back on his file and to dispose them of in accordance with law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petition allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1979]44STC39(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Secretary, Narayanpet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Yadgiri and ors.', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '374555' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
ORG: ORDERVenkataramiah, Magistrate, the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, Magistrate, Yadgiri, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate
DATE: J. 1
CARDINAL: 2.