Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others
Decided On : Jan-08-1996
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' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. Rajendra Babu' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '82', (int) 1 => 'two', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '2.', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5.', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => '6' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'November 1, 1982', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 5 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 6 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 7 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 8 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 9 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 10 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 11 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 12 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 13 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 14 => 'five years', (int) 15 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 16 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 17 => 'October 30, 1982' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of', (int) 1 => 'Karnataka' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Zone II' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'III' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '378989', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 8A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal Nos. 289 to 293 of 1994', 'appellant' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 173(8): [Subhash B. Adi, J] Further investigation by police - Death due to group clash Cases booked against both the groups - Charge-sheets were filed against respective accused - When case pending in Sessions Court representation made by MLA of District to Government seeking further investigation contending that earlier investigation was not property conducted - Government ordered further investigation High Court quashed permission granted by Government - Police filed application before Sessions Judge seeking permission for further investigation - Sessions Court granted permission - Challenge as to - Held, What is sought to be done in the case is the further investigation by the COD. It is not a case of reinvestigation or fresh investigation. Further investigation is in furtherance of the investigation already made and not undoing what is already done, the further investigation is in furtherance of the earlier report. It is ultimately the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge who conduct the trial is required to consider the material collected by the police is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused or not. The investigating agency will only place the material before the Court and it is for the Court to accept or not, object behind the further investigation is to search for the truth. In this case there is serious allegation that the real culprit is not apprehended. In furtherance of the same the police feel that the further investigation is necessary to find out the truth and has made an application to the Court for permission. The Trial Court has not found any mala fide intention on the part of the police. The accused cannot make an objection for further investigation. If not, that material collected in further investigation by itself becomes proof. It is ultimately the Court has to consider as to the sufficiency or illegality in the permission granted by the Trial Court for further investigation. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Ramabhadran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. M.R. Shanthakumari, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.V. Raveendran and ;S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.', 'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S. Rajendra Babu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of the common order made by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants, challenging certain action taken by the respondents in respect of incentives and concessions, vide Government Order No. CI 121 SPL 82 dated October 30, 1982. This notification grants package of incentives and concessions for a period of five years from date of commencement of commercial production to all new industries with effect from November 1, 1982, excluding those industries listed in the appendix thereunder. The appellants do not fall in category of those industries, listed in the appendix. They are engaged in cutting and polishing of granite stones. The said order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8-A of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a>. Subsequently, another notification was issued by the Government on March 31, 1983, granting exemption from payment of taxes on the turnover of the goods manufactured in the State of Karnataka and sold by all tiny sector industrial units, as defined thereof. Thus, there exist two notifications in force in respect of grant of incentives, one issued on October 30, 1982 and another issued on March 31, 1983. The latter notification did not repeal the earlier notification in force. Thus, both the notifications have been in force. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Therefore, the appellants contend that they are entitled for the benefit under the notification dated October 30, 1982. The department nor the appellants need not look into the notification dated March 31, 1983. In the writ petitions, this aspect does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned single Judge rested his decision on the basis of the fact that the appellants are not engaged in any manufacturing activity, inasmuch as cutting and polishing of granite stones does not amount to process or manufacture and appellants are not entitled to the incentives and concessions granted under the notification dated March 31, 1983. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter in these appeals in the light of the submissions made now. We confine our attention only to that aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is clear that there were two notifications dated October 30, 1982 and March 31, 1983 in existence and in force at the time when the appellants commenced production in their new industries. Thus, the appellants would be entitled for the benefit of notification dated October 30, 1982, and if one need not look to the notification dated March 31, 1983, such benefit will be available to the appellants for a period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial production, in so far the industries lie in Zone II, III and IV. In the notification there is no reference in any part to the manufacturing activities to be involved for claiming exemption. It is applicable to all tiny sector industries. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the department was justified in relying upon the notification dated March 31, 1983 and refusing to give the benefit of incentives as was available under the notification dated October 30, 1982. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the order made by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions is set aside, directing the authorities concerned to take into consideration the case of the appellants, with reference to the notification dated October 30, 1982 and to give the benefits to the appellants. The notices issued to the appellants by the revisional authorities stands quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appeals allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[2000]118STC409(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '378989' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. Rajendra Babu' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '82', (int) 1 => 'two', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '2.', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5.', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => '6' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'November 1, 1982', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 5 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 6 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 7 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 8 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 9 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 10 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 11 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 12 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 13 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 14 => 'five years', (int) 15 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 16 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 17 => 'October 30, 1982' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of', (int) 1 => 'Karnataka' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Zone II' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'III' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '378989', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 8A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal Nos. 289 to 293 of 1994', 'appellant' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 173(8): [Subhash B. Adi, J] Further investigation by police - Death due to group clash Cases booked against both the groups - Charge-sheets were filed against respective accused - When case pending in Sessions Court representation made by MLA of District to Government seeking further investigation contending that earlier investigation was not property conducted - Government ordered further investigation High Court quashed permission granted by Government - Police filed application before Sessions Judge seeking permission for further investigation - Sessions Court granted permission - Challenge as to - Held, What is sought to be done in the case is the further investigation by the COD. It is not a case of reinvestigation or fresh investigation. Further investigation is in furtherance of the investigation already made and not undoing what is already done, the further investigation is in furtherance of the earlier report. It is ultimately the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge who conduct the trial is required to consider the material collected by the police is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused or not. The investigating agency will only place the material before the Court and it is for the Court to accept or not, object behind the further investigation is to search for the truth. In this case there is serious allegation that the real culprit is not apprehended. In furtherance of the same the police feel that the further investigation is necessary to find out the truth and has made an application to the Court for permission. The Trial Court has not found any mala fide intention on the part of the police. The accused cannot make an objection for further investigation. If not, that material collected in further investigation by itself becomes proof. It is ultimately the Court has to consider as to the sufficiency or illegality in the permission granted by the Trial Court for further investigation. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Ramabhadran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. M.R. Shanthakumari, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.V. Raveendran and ;S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.', 'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S. Rajendra Babu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of the common order made by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants, challenging certain action taken by the respondents in respect of incentives and concessions, vide Government Order No. CI 121 SPL 82 dated October 30, 1982. This notification grants package of incentives and concessions for a period of five years from date of commencement of commercial production to all new industries with effect from November 1, 1982, excluding those industries listed in the appendix thereunder. The appellants do not fall in category of those industries, listed in the appendix. They are engaged in cutting and polishing of granite stones. The said order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8-A of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a>. Subsequently, another notification was issued by the Government on March 31, 1983, granting exemption from payment of taxes on the turnover of the goods manufactured in the State of Karnataka and sold by all tiny sector industrial units, as defined thereof. Thus, there exist two notifications in force in respect of grant of incentives, one issued on October 30, 1982 and another issued on March 31, 1983. The latter notification did not repeal the earlier notification in force. Thus, both the notifications have been in force. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Therefore, the appellants contend that they are entitled for the benefit under the notification dated October 30, 1982. The department nor the appellants need not look into the notification dated March 31, 1983. In the writ petitions, this aspect does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned single Judge rested his decision on the basis of the fact that the appellants are not engaged in any manufacturing activity, inasmuch as cutting and polishing of granite stones does not amount to process or manufacture and appellants are not entitled to the incentives and concessions granted under the notification dated March 31, 1983. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter in these appeals in the light of the submissions made now. We confine our attention only to that aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is clear that there were two notifications dated October 30, 1982 and March 31, 1983 in existence and in force at the time when the appellants commenced production in their new industries. Thus, the appellants would be entitled for the benefit of notification dated October 30, 1982, and if one need not look to the notification dated March 31, 1983, such benefit will be available to the appellants for a period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial production, in so far the industries lie in Zone II, III and IV. In the notification there is no reference in any part to the manufacturing activities to be involved for claiming exemption. It is applicable to all tiny sector industries. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the department was justified in relying upon the notification dated March 31, 1983 and refusing to give the benefit of incentives as was available under the notification dated October 30, 1982. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the order made by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions is set aside, directing the authorities concerned to take into consideration the case of the appellants, with reference to the notification dated October 30, 1982 and to give the benefits to the appellants. The notices issued to the appellants by the revisional authorities stands quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appeals allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[2000]118STC409(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '378989' ) $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' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. Rajendra Babu' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '82', (int) 1 => 'two', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '2.', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5.', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => '6' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'November 1, 1982', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 5 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 6 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 7 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 8 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 9 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 10 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 11 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 12 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 13 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 14 => 'five years', (int) 15 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 16 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 17 => 'October 30, 1982' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of', (int) 1 => 'Karnataka' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Zone II' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'III' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '378989', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 8A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal Nos. 289 to 293 of 1994', 'appellant' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 173(8): [Subhash B. Adi, J] Further investigation by police - Death due to group clash Cases booked against both the groups - Charge-sheets were filed against respective accused - When case pending in Sessions Court representation made by MLA of District to Government seeking further investigation contending that earlier investigation was not property conducted - Government ordered further investigation High Court quashed permission granted by Government - Police filed application before Sessions Judge seeking permission for further investigation - Sessions Court granted permission - Challenge as to - Held, What is sought to be done in the case is the further investigation by the COD. It is not a case of reinvestigation or fresh investigation. Further investigation is in furtherance of the investigation already made and not undoing what is already done, the further investigation is in furtherance of the earlier report. It is ultimately the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge who conduct the trial is required to consider the material collected by the police is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused or not. The investigating agency will only place the material before the Court and it is for the Court to accept or not, object behind the further investigation is to search for the truth. In this case there is serious allegation that the real culprit is not apprehended. In furtherance of the same the police feel that the further investigation is necessary to find out the truth and has made an application to the Court for permission. The Trial Court has not found any mala fide intention on the part of the police. The accused cannot make an objection for further investigation. If not, that material collected in further investigation by itself becomes proof. It is ultimately the Court has to consider as to the sufficiency or illegality in the permission granted by the Trial Court for further investigation. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Ramabhadran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. M.R. Shanthakumari, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.V. Raveendran and ;S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.', 'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S. Rajendra Babu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of the common order made by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants, challenging certain action taken by the respondents in respect of incentives and concessions, vide Government Order No. CI 121 SPL 82 dated October 30, 1982. This notification grants package of incentives and concessions for a period of five years from date of commencement of commercial production to all new industries with effect from November 1, 1982, excluding those industries listed in the appendix thereunder. The appellants do not fall in category of those industries, listed in the appendix. They are engaged in cutting and polishing of granite stones. The said order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8-A of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a>. Subsequently, another notification was issued by the Government on March 31, 1983, granting exemption from payment of taxes on the turnover of the goods manufactured in the State of Karnataka and sold by all tiny sector industrial units, as defined thereof. Thus, there exist two notifications in force in respect of grant of incentives, one issued on October 30, 1982 and another issued on March 31, 1983. The latter notification did not repeal the earlier notification in force. Thus, both the notifications have been in force. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Therefore, the appellants contend that they are entitled for the benefit under the notification dated October 30, 1982. The department nor the appellants need not look into the notification dated March 31, 1983. In the writ petitions, this aspect does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned single Judge rested his decision on the basis of the fact that the appellants are not engaged in any manufacturing activity, inasmuch as cutting and polishing of granite stones does not amount to process or manufacture and appellants are not entitled to the incentives and concessions granted under the notification dated March 31, 1983. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter in these appeals in the light of the submissions made now. We confine our attention only to that aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is clear that there were two notifications dated October 30, 1982 and March 31, 1983 in existence and in force at the time when the appellants commenced production in their new industries. Thus, the appellants would be entitled for the benefit of notification dated October 30, 1982, and if one need not look to the notification dated March 31, 1983, such benefit will be available to the appellants for a period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial production, in so far the industries lie in Zone II, III and IV. In the notification there is no reference in any part to the manufacturing activities to be involved for claiming exemption. It is applicable to all tiny sector industries. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the department was justified in relying upon the notification dated March 31, 1983 and refusing to give the benefit of incentives as was available under the notification dated October 30, 1982. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the order made by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions is set aside, directing the authorities concerned to take into consideration the case of the appellants, with reference to the notification dated October 30, 1982 and to give the benefits to the appellants. The notices issued to the appellants by the revisional authorities stands quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appeals allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[2000]118STC409(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '378989' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. Rajendra Babu' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '82', (int) 1 => 'two', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '2.', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5.', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => '6' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'November 1, 1982', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 5 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 6 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 7 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 8 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 9 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 10 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 11 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 12 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 13 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 14 => 'five years', (int) 15 => 'March 31, 1983', (int) 16 => 'October 30, 1982', (int) 17 => 'October 30, 1982' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of', (int) 1 => 'Karnataka' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Zone II' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'III' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '378989', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 8A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal Nos. 289 to 293 of 1994', 'appellant' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 173(8): [Subhash B. Adi, J] Further investigation by police - Death due to group clash Cases booked against both the groups - Charge-sheets were filed against respective accused - When case pending in Sessions Court representation made by MLA of District to Government seeking further investigation contending that earlier investigation was not property conducted - Government ordered further investigation High Court quashed permission granted by Government - Police filed application before Sessions Judge seeking permission for further investigation - Sessions Court granted permission - Challenge as to - Held, What is sought to be done in the case is the further investigation by the COD. It is not a case of reinvestigation or fresh investigation. Further investigation is in furtherance of the investigation already made and not undoing what is already done, the further investigation is in furtherance of the earlier report. It is ultimately the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge who conduct the trial is required to consider the material collected by the police is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused or not. The investigating agency will only place the material before the Court and it is for the Court to accept or not, object behind the further investigation is to search for the truth. In this case there is serious allegation that the real culprit is not apprehended. In furtherance of the same the police feel that the further investigation is necessary to find out the truth and has made an application to the Court for permission. The Trial Court has not found any mala fide intention on the part of the police. The accused cannot make an objection for further investigation. If not, that material collected in further investigation by itself becomes proof. It is ultimately the Court has to consider as to the sufficiency or illegality in the permission granted by the Trial Court for further investigation. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Ramabhadran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. M.R. Shanthakumari, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.V. Raveendran and ;S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.', 'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S. Rajendra Babu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of the common order made by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants, challenging certain action taken by the respondents in respect of incentives and concessions, vide Government Order No. CI 121 SPL 82 dated October 30, 1982. This notification grants package of incentives and concessions for a period of five years from date of commencement of commercial production to all new industries with effect from November 1, 1982, excluding those industries listed in the appendix thereunder. The appellants do not fall in category of those industries, listed in the appendix. They are engaged in cutting and polishing of granite stones. The said order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8-A of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a>. Subsequently, another notification was issued by the Government on March 31, 1983, granting exemption from payment of taxes on the turnover of the goods manufactured in the State of Karnataka and sold by all tiny sector industrial units, as defined thereof. Thus, there exist two notifications in force in respect of grant of incentives, one issued on October 30, 1982 and another issued on March 31, 1983. The latter notification did not repeal the earlier notification in force. Thus, both the notifications have been in force. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Therefore, the appellants contend that they are entitled for the benefit under the notification dated October 30, 1982. The department nor the appellants need not look into the notification dated March 31, 1983. In the writ petitions, this aspect does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned single Judge rested his decision on the basis of the fact that the appellants are not engaged in any manufacturing activity, inasmuch as cutting and polishing of granite stones does not amount to process or manufacture and appellants are not entitled to the incentives and concessions granted under the notification dated March 31, 1983. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter in these appeals in the light of the submissions made now. We confine our attention only to that aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is clear that there were two notifications dated October 30, 1982 and March 31, 1983 in existence and in force at the time when the appellants commenced production in their new industries. Thus, the appellants would be entitled for the benefit of notification dated October 30, 1982, and if one need not look to the notification dated March 31, 1983, such benefit will be available to the appellants for a period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial production, in so far the industries lie in Zone II, III and IV. In the notification there is no reference in any part to the manufacturing activities to be involved for claiming exemption. It is applicable to all tiny sector industries. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the department was justified in relying upon the notification dated March 31, 1983 and refusing to give the benefit of incentives as was available under the notification dated October 30, 1982. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the order made by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions is set aside, directing the authorities concerned to take into consideration the case of the appellants, with reference to the notification dated October 30, 1982 and to give the benefits to the appellants. The notices issued to the appellants by the revisional authorities stands quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appeals allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[2000]118STC409(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Others', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '378989' ) $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
LAW: section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act
PERSON: S. Rajendra Babu
NORP: J.1
CARDINAL: 82, two, one, 2., 3, 4, 5., two, 6
DATE: October 30, 1982, five years, November 1, 1982, 1957, March 31, 1983, October 30, 1982, March 31, 1983, October 30, 1982, March 31, 1983, March 31, 1983, October 30, 1982, March 31, 1983, October 30, 1982, March 31, 1983, five years, March 31, 1983, October 30, 1982, October 30, 1982
GPE: the State of, Karnataka
EVENT: Zone II
ORG: III