Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)1MysLJ440; [1967]20STC20(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. The facts which are not disputed and which are sufficient for the disposal of the only prayer in this writ petition are the following :- 2. The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax both under the Mysore Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. For the year ended 31st March, 1962, the Commercial Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Hubli, the 1st respondent herein, made an order of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act on 31st March, 1966, and also an order of the same date under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. In the former he held that a sum of Rs. 20,936.02 was refundable to the petitioner. Nevertheless he did not direct the payment or refund thereof to the petitioner; instead he made a direction in the second order that the said sum will be adjusted towards certain amounts held to be due by the petitioner for and on account of the sales tax payable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. 3. The petitioner complains that the adjustment so proposed by the 1st responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant269; AIR1968Mys269; (1967)1MysLJ619
(1) This is an appeal by defendant 3 against that part of the final decree made by the Court below by which he was directed to pay to defendant 1 a sum of Rs. 1,344-86 paise and to defendants 2 and 4 a sum of Rs.5,379-43 paise. This liability related to the period between December 4, 1951 and March 31, 1963. Defendant 3 contends in this appeal that the determination of the amounts, was not properly made.(2) A few facts which we should enumerate for understanding the complaint ventilated in this appeal are these:-During the pendency of the suit all the properties belonging to the family except home-farm lands which were in the possession of the plaintiffs and defendant 3 continued to be in possession of a receiver who had been appointed at some antecedent stage. According to the report of the Commissioner, the receiver was not able to collect all the income due to the family from the tenants who cultivated them. The receiver was able to collect smaller sums of money and after their depo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1967KAR988; (1970)ILLJ171Kant
Gopivallabha Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the show-cause notice issued by respondent 3 marked Ex. A dated 1/3 December, 1964 and bearing MST/ BTS/TRF/DFL/D4 : 479/3833. 2. The petitioner is a conductor of the erstwhile Bangalore Transport Company, Ltd. He appears to have been appointed prior to 1 October, 1956 when the State Government took over the entire undertaking of the Bangalore Transport Company, Ltd., under the provisions of Mysore Act 8 of 1956 which came into force on 27 September, 1956. By virtue of this Act all persons employed by that company and still employed immediately before 1 October, 1956, became as from that date, the employees of the Government of Mysore. Under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) came into existence with effect from 1 August, 1961. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1967]20STC38(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is described as hospital contractor which means that on a contract with the Government hospitals at Mangalore, he is supplying certain articles to the said hospitals. Among others, he supplied charcoal worth Rs. 1,365 and firewood worth Rs. 13,200 to the Government hospitals at Mangalore during the year 1961-62. In the course of his assessment to sales tax for the said year under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, he claimed that the above turnover relating to charcoal and firewood supplied to Government hospitals, was exempt from tax under section 8(1) of the Act read with entry 29 of the Fifth Schedule. His contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, whose opinion has been later confirmed both by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on first appeal as well as by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upon second appeal. Hence, this revision petition in which the petitioner contends that the view taken by the authorities as well a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)1MysLJ504; [1967]20STC64(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a dealer in cloth of different varieties, some of which are entitled to exemption from sales tax, made a return in respect of his turnover for the financial year 1958-59 showing gross turnover of Rs. 1,25,456, out of which a turnover of Rs. 32,695 alone was shown as liable to tax. The Commercial Tax Officer, after looking into the accounts and examining the return, accepted the net turnover liable to tax to be Rs. 32,695.47 and imposed tax as follows :- 'Tax at 6 per cent. on Rs. 29,128.19 (Mill) will be Rs. 1,747.68Tax at 3 per cent. on Rs. 1,967.05 will be Rs. 59.01Tax at 9 per cent. on Rs. 1,600.23 will be Rs. 144.00-------------Total Rs. 1,950.69'.-------------2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and pleaded that the turnover of Rs. 29,128 taxed at six per cent. as shown above was turnover which was entitled to exemption under entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule and that it was by mistake tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant198; AIR1968Mys198; (1967)1MysLJ621
Tukol, J. (1) The short question raised by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to the vires of Section 47 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Madras Act No. V of 1920) in so far as it lays down that a leper shall not be entitled to vote in an election to Municipal Council.(2) At the Election held by the Mangalore Municipal Council in Mangalore Town, District South Kanara on October 24, 1962 the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 were candidates for Election from Ward No. 33, Jeppy (North). It is a double member Constituency, one seat being reserved for a Harijan. The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are Harijans. The petitioner for the Harijan Seat and respondent No.3 for the General Seat secured the highest number of votes and the Election Officer declared them to have been duly elected, on October 25, 1962. The first respondent filed an Election petition on October 31, 1962 before the election Commissioner and Principal Civ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant69; AIR1968Mys69; [1968(17)FLR139]; (1967)1MysLJ609
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the show-cause notice issued by the third respondent, marked Ex. A dated 1/3-12-1964 and bearing MST/BTS/TRF/DFL/D4: 479/3833.(2) The petitioner is a conductor of the erstwhile Bangalore Transport Company, Limited. He appears to have been appointed prior to 1-10-1956 when the State Government took over the entire undertaking of the Bangalore Transport Company, Limited under the provisions of Mysore Act VIII of 1956 which came into force on the 27th of September 1956 By virtue of this Act, all persons employed by that Company and still employed immediately before 1-10-1956, became as from that date, the employees of the Government of Mysore. Under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) came into existence with effect from 1-8-1961. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. This Revision petition, arising out of proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter called the Act, raises the question of the scope of the Umpire's authority when he enters on the reference in lieu of the Arbitrators.2. The material facts may be shortly stated:By a contract in writhing dated October 12, 1959, and made between the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the State') of the one part, and respondent-1 (herein after referred to as 'the contractor') of the other part, the contractor agreed to construct what is called 'Malali Tunnel' and approaches thereto (part of Sharavati Valley-Hydro Electric Project) in accordance with the specifications, plans and terms and conditions specified in the annexures to the said agreement. The contract contained the following material provisions:--'51, Arbitration: Notwithstanding anything contained in the clauses hereinabove, the decision of the Special Chief Engineer shall be final in all technical matters detailed in c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)1MysLJ646; [1967]20STC239(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioner who is a registered dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act was found to have omitted to issue bills or cash memorandum as required by sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Act when the Inspector of the department visited his shop at a Shandy at Chikkamagalur on 25th August, 1965. After issuing a notice to him and hearing him, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chikkamagalur, levied on him a composition fee of Rs. 500. The petitioner impugns the levy as illegal and invalid. 2. It appears from the records that the levy was more or less a matter of discussion and consent between the petitioner and the Commercial Tax Officer. It is also clear that the action taken by the officer is relatable to section 31 of the Act. 3. If that much can be clearly gathered from the record, we fail to see what grievance the petitioner can make in respect of the levy. 4. He has, however, raised a technical point to the effect that this was a case in which no punishment was poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)1MysLJ502; [1967]20STC67(Kar)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. These two appeals are by the same assessee and relate to two assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The Commercial Tax Officer, the original assessing authority, determined his turnover on what is called the best judgment basis. The assessee runs a hotel. The officer therefore estimated his turnover by multiplying his establishment charges by 5. On that basis, he determined his turnover at Rs. 49,018.30 P. for the year 1960-61 and at Rs. 48,400 for the year 1961-62. He appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and pleaded that such large turnover could not have been properly and reasonably determined in his case because he has suffered during the relevant years, and also some time prior thereto, heavy losses in business on account of some litigation and that even the Income-tax Authorities had fixed his total turnover only at Rs. 25,000 for each of the years. He stated his case upon affidavit before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after...
Tag this Judgment!