Karnataka Court January 1962 Judgments
Mysore Silk House Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC597(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer in power-loom cloths. The goods with which we are concerned in this case were the subject-matter of inter-State trade, the relevant period being 1st July, 1957, to 31st March, 1958. 2. Under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the disputed transactions were not subject to any tax, they being second sales. But the Tribunals below have come to the conclusion that in view of section 8(1) and (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which came into force on 1st July, 1957, these transactions have become liable to be taxed. They have held that a portion of the turnover, i.e., Rs. 34,839-77 is liable to be taxed under section 8(2) and the remaining portion of the turnover, i.e., Rs. 86,577-49 is liable to be taxed under section 8(1) of that Act. We may mention at this stage that the latter portion of the turnover is covered by 'C' forms, as required by sub-section (3) of section 8. We have had occasion to consider the scope of section 8(2) in C.R.P. No...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Lingappa Jotawar Vs. Cholawwa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ693
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner who is the husband asks me to direct the Magistrate to stay the proceedings before him instituted by his wife for the payment of maintenance to her under Section 488 of the Code of Criminals Procedure. The reason why the petitioner asks for that order is that he made an application on May 29, 1961, after the wife made her application to the Criminal Court, for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also for a decree for judicial separation under Section 10. The Court below came to the conclusion that it was not proper to stay the proceedings in the Criminal Court for the mere reason that the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act were pending in the Civil Court2. Mr. Savanur appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the view taken by the Courts below overlooks the provisions of Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reads:4. Over-riding effect of Act-- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Khaitan Minerals Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for Mysore at Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Kant141; ILR1963KAR183; [1962]13STC508(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J.1. When these cases were posted on the board, they were not clubbed together for hearing. We happened to hear these revision petitions together under circumstances to be mentioned hereinafter. They raise common questions of law and therefore they could be conveniently dealt with in one judgment. We shall first take up C.R.P. No. 864 of 1959. 2. The turnover of the business of the petitioner, who is a dealer in manganese ore in Sandur, Bellary District, was held liable to be assessed to sales tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary. His order was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner's appeal to the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Case No. S.T.A. 165 of 1958 ended unsuccessfully. Hence this revision petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the disputed turnover is protected by Article 286 of the Indian Constitution as it stood prior to its amendment in 1956 and section 27 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act which...
Tag this Judgment!Thippiah Manjappa Vs. Huvinakuli Ramiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys210; (1963)1MysLJ61
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. In execution of a decree obtained by the second respondent in this Revision Petition in Original Suit No. 123 of 1948-49 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff at Sagar, certain items of immovable property were brought to sale on 13-6-1957 and one of the items was purchased by the first respondent in this Revision Petition. The sale was ordered on 22-3-1957. The entry in the order sheet of that date reads as follows: 'Decree-holder by Sri K. M. Judgment-debtors 1 to 4 and 5 absent. V.S.T. and S.F. paid and filed with the decree copy. Sell on 13/14-6-57.' 2. The proclamation of sale is in Form No. 29 set out in Appendix 'E' to the Code of Civil Procedure, translated into Kannada. The sale was held by the Nazir of the Munsiff's Court.3. By the sale of the item purchased by the first respondent, the entire decree amount was realised. Hence the sale of the rest was not conducted. The report of the Nazir which is in Kannada is as follows : (Omitted: the office no...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Santoomal Kishnomal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC313(Kar)
ORDER1. The only point that comes up for consideration in this case is whether a 'crow-bar' is an 'agricultural implement' exempted from sales tax under schedule III of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has opined that it is an agricultural implement. There is no denying of the fact that the crow-bar is used as an agricultural implement. But, what the learned Government Pleader contends is that it is mainly used as an instrument for purposes other than agricultural purposes and therefore it should not be considered as an 'agricultural implement'. 'Agricultural implement' has not been defined in the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, nor in the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, we have to take ordinary meaning of the words 'agricultural implement' into consideration. It is not denied that a 'crow-bar' is generally used as an agricultural implement. The question whether it is predominantly used as such an instrument to our mind appears to be an irrelevant questi...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vedavyasacharya Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC465(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. Just two points come up for consideration in this revision petition. They are (1) whether the petitioner who is a 'dealer' under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, is entitled to deduct from his gross turnover the transport charges paid by him and included in his invoices; and (2) whether he is entitled to deduct from his gross turnover the royalty paid by him to the State Government. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in iron ore. He sold goods to several customers. He also undertook to deliver those goods at the places mentioned by his customers as per terms of the contract entered into by him with his customers. The price for the ore sold was separately fixed. The purchaser had to bear the transport charges though the petitioner had to arrange for the transport of the ore sold. In the invoices given to the customers the price of the iron ore was separately mentioned. Similarly, the transport charges were separately mentioned. In other words, the price fixed for the iron or...
Tag this Judgment!Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC583(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. These are connected matters. They arise out of the same order. But we shall first take up for consideration C.R.P. No. 964/61. 2. The question for consideration in C.R.P. No. 964/61 is whether on the facts and circumstances of that case, the tax liability of the petitioner, under the Central Sales Tax Act, to be referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter, on his inter-State sales can be any more than what it would have been had they been intra-State sales and liable to be taxed under the Mysore Sales Tax Law. The turnover in question relates to sales effected by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during the period commencing form 1st July, 1957, and ending on 31st March, 1958. The disputed turnover relates to sale of textiles manufactured by means of powerlooms. Under the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948, those goods were liable to be taxed under section 3(2) read with Schedule 1, entry 2(a), of that Act and under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, those...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Nagaraja Setty and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC578(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. In these petitions the true scope of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act' comes for consideration. 2. The petitioners in these cases are dealers in raw silk. The period with which we are concerned in these cases is from 1st July, 1957, to 31st March, 1958. 3. It may be remembered that Article 286 of the Constitution stood amended as a result of the Constitution Sixth Amendment Act. The amended Article 286(3) which is relevant for our purpose reads thus : 'Any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade a commerce, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may be law specify.' 4. It is in pursuance of the amended provisions contained in clauses (2) and (3) of A...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, Bangalore I and anr. Vs. Mysore Spun Silk Mills Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1962
Reported in: [1964]34CompCas225(Kar)
1. The applicant, Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle A, Bangalore, had made a claim for preferential payment to him of a sum of Rs. 14,503.80 from the assets of the company in liquidation. the claim is wholly rejected by the liquidator by his order dated 18th January,1962. In this application, the applicant appeals against the order of the liquidator rejecting his claim. 2. The facts and circumstances, on the strength of which the claim had been made, are briefly the following: The company had entered into a contract with a from of builders called 'South India Builders' for construction of certain buildings. The said firm of builders had defaulted in payment of income-tax due by them, for recovery of which the Income-tax Officer, Bellary, who was the appropriate assessing authority in respect of the said firm, issued to the company on 11th February, 1953, a notice under the provision of section 46 (5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requiring the company to pay to th...
Tag this Judgment!Kapila Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Madhava and Co. by Partners Rukn-ui-mulk ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys39
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitionersare a public Company Limited by shares called 'The Kapila Textile Mills, Ltd.' now under liquidation and represented by the Official Liquidator. The respondents, Messrs. B.S. Madhava and Co., are a firm of partners carrying on business as Engineers and Builders. The matter arises out of certain arbitration proceedings. In the course of the arbitration proceedings the petitioners are referred to as the defendants and the respondents as the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to them likewise in this order.2. On the 20th of November 1948, the parties entered into an agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Building Contract, under which the plaintiffs agreed to do the work of fabricating and erecting certain steel trusses and columns and asbestos cement roofing as well as certain other items of work for the defendants-Mills at Nanjangud, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Building Contract. Among the conditions of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »