Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ156Kant; (1969)1MysLJ169
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 5 July, 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the promotions which have been made irregularly on the basis of the provisional inter-State seniority list which stands superseded by the final inter-State seniority list should be reviewed.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 of 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 class II post to a class III post. It is this reversion which is challenged in this writ petition.2. It is contended by Sri Jagannatha Shetti 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 poet 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 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1969]24STC252(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer in Hubli and with respect to the turnover of his business in respect of three different periods starting on 1st April, 1965 and ending on 30th September, 1967, three assessment orders were made by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. The Commercial Tax Officer who made the assessment was one Ramasetty. But the petitioner had produced his returns before another Commercial Tax Officer, and Ramasetty was the Commercial Tax Officer who issued notices under section 14(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, which was then operating in the area with which we are concerned, calling upon the dealer to produce evidence in support of his returns. One of the members of the petitioner's family who was carrying on the business, to which the orders of assessment related, appeared before Ramasetty and produced evidence which Ramasetty called upon the dealer to produce and on the production of that evidence, he made the impugned orders of assessment. He purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant11; AIR1970Mys11
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer in Hubli and with respect to the turnover of his business in respect of three different periods starting on April, 1965 and ending on September, 30, 1967 three assessment orders were made by the concerned commercial tax officer. The commercial tax officer who made the assessments was one Ramasetty. But the petitioner had produced his returns before another commercial tax officer, and Ramasetty was the commercial tax officer who issued notices under Section 14 (3) (a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act which was then operating in the area with which we are concerned calling upon the dealer to produce evidence in support of his returns. One of the members of the petitioner's family who was carrying on the business to which the orders of assessment related appeared before Ramasetty and produced evidence which Ramasetty called upon the dealer to produce and on the production of that evidence, he made the impugned order of assessment. He purported to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1969]23STC155(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This revision petition relates to an assessment made by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. When the petitioner which is called the Kaniyara Seva Samaj, and whose allegation is that it is a charitable institution, produced its return before the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer disclosing a turnover, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, on the basis of that return made an assessment. There was an appeal from this assessment order to the Assistant Commissioner in which the petitioner raised the contention that since it is a charitable institution which is supplying ready-made garments manufactured by it without there being any profit-making motive, there was no sale and there was, therefore, no taxable turnover. The Assistant Commissioner, who did not accept this contention, dismissed the appeal The second appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was also di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant348; AIR1969Mys348
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner was a physical instructress in a high school in South Kanara District in the Madras State, which became part of the new State of Mysore under the States Reorganisation Act, on November 1, 1956. The pay scale applicable to the post held by her when the reorganisation took place was Rs. 50-60. On January 1, 1957 it became Rs. 50-100 and it was again revised and became Rs. 80-130 when there was another revision of pay scales in the new State of Mysore on January 1, 1961.2. When there was the reorganisation of States, persons who were physical instructors in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad were allotted for service in the new State of Mysore, and they became physical instructors in that new State. Some physical Instructors of the other three areas which became part of the new State of Mysore also became physical instructors in that new State and all these posts were treated as equivalent posts in respect of which a common seniority list was prepared.3. On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ551Kant; (1969)1MysLJ598
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The Board of Governors of the Baldwin Boys' High School, Bangalore, which is a private educational institution, is the petitioner before us. Respondent 2, Mondol, was a teacher in that school. By a resolution of the Board of Governors passed on 15 January, 1963, Mondol's services were terminated on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice which was possible for the Board of Governors to do under the agreement between Mondol and the management of the school. 2. Against this order of termination, Mondol preferred an appeal to the Director of Public Instruction under rule 50(viii) of the Grant-in-aid Code for Secondary Schools in the State of Mysore. The Director of Public Instruction decided that appeal in favour of Mondol on the ground that the proceeding which culminated in the termination of Mondol's services was not in accordance with law and so he directed a fresh enquiry in strict accordance with rule 50 of the Grant-in-aid Code. 3. From this decision, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant270; AIR1969Mys270; (1969)1MysLJ387
Somnath Iyer, J.1. A common question of law arises in these two writ petitions and that question is whether the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal can exercise the revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 52 of the Mysore Irrigation Act (Mysore Act I of 1932). This is how the question arises.2. In writ Petition No. 1241/66, the petitioner owns lands which are irrigated by a reservoir known as the Vani Vilas Sagar in the district of Chitradurga. Three acres out of forty-eight acres of land owned by the petitioner were situated in a somewhat higher level which could not be reached by the channel and so, the petitioner made an application to the concerned Deputy commissioner for permission to store water flowing in that channel at a particular point on this land and to pump that water into those three acres. The Deputy Commissioner granted that permission but in the appeal preferred to the Chief Engineer by the adjacent land owners, that permission accorded by the Deputy Commissioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)1MysLJ167; [1969]24STC11(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. These revision petitions are presented by the State Government against the order of remand made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in two appeals the source of which was a proceeding commenced under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Commercial Tax Officer found the respondent, who was a manufacturer of sarees, guilty of offences under clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act which will be referred to as 'the Act' in the course of this judgment. So, he imposed a penalty of Re. 250 with respect to each of those offences. 2. But in appeal the penalty with respect to the offence under section 10(b) was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, but with respect to the offence under section 10(d) he confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. 3. But in the further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal there was a remand of the matter to the Deputy Commissioner only with respect to the offence referred to in clause (d) of section ...
Tag this Judgment!