Karnataka Court November 1968 Judgments
Bhagwantha Rao Govinda Rao Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant306; AIR1969Mys306
Somnath Iyer, J.1. On July 5, 1966, Government made an order that the promotions which have been made irregularly on the basis of the provisional Inter State Seniority List which stands superseded by the final Inter State Seniority List should be reviewed. The consequence on one such review was that the petitioner who was an Assistant Director of Public Instruction in the office of the Director of Public Instruction was reverted from that post which was a class II post to a Class III post. It is this reversion which is challenged in this writ petition.2. It is contended by Mr. Jagannatha Shetty appearing for the petitioner that the misconception which was responsible for the impugned reversion was an erroneous belief that there was a promotion of the petitioner to the post from which he is now reverted, and that that promotion was an irregular promotion which could be reviewed in the context of the final Inter State Seniority List prepared by the Government of India.3. It appears to us...
Tag this Judgment!Narasappa Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ293
Ahmed Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner along with one C. Hanumanthappa was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Sindhnoor, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for the contravention of Clause 3 of the Mysore Food Grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, and each of them were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. In an appeal, the Sessions Judge, Raichur allowed the appeal of Hanumanthappa and acquitted him, but he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the decision of the Magistrate, in this regard by his order dated 31st January 1968, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 49/6 of 1967 on the file of his court. It is against that order of the Sessions Judge, that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 4th May 1967, the petitioner and one Hanumanthappa were found transporting 75 bags of jawar in lorry No, MYR 3537 and that the...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Subramanya Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR499(KAR); [1969]73ITR499(Karn)
1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act. His agricultural income in respect of the period between October 29, 1961, and October 28, 1962, was assessed to agricultural income-tax by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer who made his assessment order on March 16, 1963. By reason of the fact that he wrongly described the assessment year as 1962-63 although the assessment year was really 1963-64, the Income-tax Officer omitted to include in the assessment made by him the super-tax which was payable under section 53A of the Act, which became payable only in respect of the assessment year 1963-64 and the following assessment years. 2. It was for that reason that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax commenced a proceeding under section 35 of the Act in which he proposed to revise the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer by adding to the determined tax, the super-tax charge by section 53A of the Act. He issued a notice to the petitioner on Feb...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. F.D. Malladad and Bros.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC230(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by State Government against an order made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer which was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. The Commercial Tax Officer made an assessment of the turnover of the respondent-firm which was carrying on business as commission agents in the State of Mysore both directly and through its agents. 2. The contention advanced by the firm which the Tribunal accepted was that since the firm was carrying on its business through its agents, that part of the turnover which related to the business so carried on through the agents could not be taxed as turnover in the hands of the firm, and that the agents alone were liable to pay the tax. This view was founded by the Tribunal on the first proviso to section 11 which reads : '11. Every person who for an agreed commission or brokerage buys or sells on behalf of known principals spec...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Nazir Khan, Abdul Gaffar Khan Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC269(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, and in respect of the assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-65 the turnover of his oil-mill which produced oil and oil-cakes was assessed to sales tax by the Assistant Commercial Tax officer since the turnover was less than Rs. 40,000. A proceeding was subsequently commenced under section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act for the assessment of turnover which was believed to have escaped assessment. The proceeding so commenced by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was transferred to the file of the Commercial Tax Officer for the reason that the turnover when properly determined was likely to exceed Rs. 40,000. The Commercial Tax Officer then issued a notice to the petitioner and substituted new figures for the turnover determined by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer ill consequence of which the petitioner became liable to pay enhanced sales tax. 2. From the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer, in that way...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunatha Type Retreading Works Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC428(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Mangalore, commenced proceedings against the petitioner who is the proprietor of a business concern which engages in retreading tyres, for the imposition of penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act on the allegation that he had committed offences under clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 of that Act. 2. By an order in which he did not record findings in support of his conclusion, he directed the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,628.50 in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 and a sum of Rs. 5,649.89 in respect of the year 1962-63. 3. There were two unsuccessful appeals preferred by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner, and in the further appeals preferred to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal the limited relief which he secured was a reduction in the penalty. 4. In these two revision petitions, the petitioner asks us to quash the orders made in that way. 5. The petitioner was registered as a de...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. F.D. Malladad and Brothers
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant309; AIR1969Mys309; (1969)1MysLJ276
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by the State Government against an order made by the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer which was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. The Commercial Tax Officer made an assessment of the turnover of the respondent-firm which was carrying on business as commission agents in the State of Mysore both directly and through its agents.2. The contention advanced by the firm which the Tribunal accepted was that since the firm was carrying on its business through its agents, that part of the turnover which relates to the business so carried on through the agents could not be taxed as turnover in the hands of the firm, and that the agents alone were liable to pay the tax. This view was founded by the Tribunal on the first proviso to Section 11 which reads:-'11. Every person who for an agreed commission or brokerage buys or sells on behalf of known principals sp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K.R. Patel and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR508(KAR); [1969]73ITR508(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. A.M. Patel, R. M. Patel and Rambhai M. Patel were the three partners of a firm called Select Pictures Circuit. These three partners had each invested a sum of Rs. 40,000 in the another concern called Cine Syndicate & Traders (P.) Ltd. When the income of the partnership firm was assessed in respect of the assessment year 1950-51 that sum of Rs. 1,20,000 which had been so invested by the partners was treated as the income of the firm by the Income-tax Officer and assessed accordingly. But the appeal preferred by the firm was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who recorded a finding that that sum of money was not the income of the firm. He accordingly held that it was not taxable income of the firm. 2. But the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issued a direction in the appeal to the Income-tax Officer that he should proceed against the individual partners of the firm under the second proviso to section 34(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and consider the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Mallihal Village Panchayat Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant345; AIR1969Mys345
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This writ petition concerns a controversy about the location of a Primary Health Centre financed by the Government of India in the district of Shimoga. The choice of the State Government was a village known as Arebiliohi, and the petitioner who is a resident of a village called Kallihal asks us for a direction that it should be established in Maresettihalli.2. The petitioner's complaint is that the selection overlooked the opinion of the previous health Minister Dr. Nagappa Alva and other officers such as the Deputy Commissioner and the District Health Officer who thought that Marasettihalli was better than Arebiliohi.3. But the choice of the site is an administrative function, and if the State Government thought that one site was more suitable that the other, this Court has no power to interpose its own view on that matter.4. But it was contended that the selection of Arebiliohi was an act of reprisal by the then Chief Minister Mr. Nijalingappa whose candidate at th...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Revanna and ors. Vs. the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Kant219; AIR1970Mys219; ILR1969KAR227; (1969)1MysLJ141
Somnath Iyer, J.1. On June 30, 1967, the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, granted a permit to respondent 3 to operate his stage carriage on an inter-State route between Tumkur and Thirupathi which is in the State of Mysore. Part of that route between Mulbagal and Doddaballapura which lies within the State of Mysore, became a notified route under a Scheme called the Kolar Scheme which was published on January 25, 1968, after It received approval under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.2 Meanwhile, respondent 3 had made an application to the State Transport Authority, Bangalore, on September 5, 1967, for its counter-signature under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the route which was within the Mysore State, That counter-signature became necessary by reason of the provision contained in Section 63(1) of the Act that a permit granted by one State shall have no validity in another State unless it is counter-signed by the concern...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »