Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ336; ILR1968KAR535; (1968)1MysLJ614; [1968]22STC277(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner, T. Nanjappa & Sons, is a firm of partners carrying on business of general merchants at Krishnarajpet, Mandya District. They are assessed to sales tax as dealers. In the course of an inspection of their business premises, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore Division, discovered several irregularities which in his opinion amounted to offences punishable under section 29 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. Thereupon, he issued notice to them dated 4th April, 1966, expressing his opinion as stated above and giving them all opportunity to compound the offences departmentally by paying Rs. 500 in respect of each of the offences and calling upon them to appear before him for the said purpose on 19th April, 1966. On that date, two partners, namely, T. Nanjappa and H. N. Janardhana, were present and after hearing them and discussing the matter with them, he made the following record in his order of that date :- 'Sri T. Nanjappa was present in person alo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant141; AIR1970Mys141
1. The petition is directed against an order made in Misc. C. A. No. 31/5/1966, on 21-12-1966 by the learned Civil Judge, Gulbarga. The said appeal was preferred by the first respondent herein against an order of appointment of a receiver made in O. S. No. 165/1 of 1965, by the learned Munsiff. Shorapur. 2. The few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are as follows:-- The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 165/1 of 1965. He has sued for a decree declaring his title to the suit schedule properties and for an Injunction. The suit was filed against the respondent herein as also one Narayana Rao. The second respondent Paddamma and one Gundamma were the widows of one Subba Rao. Subsequent to the death of Subba Rao. the two widows are said to have divided the properties inherited by them and continued to be in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares till the death of the widow Gundamma on 14-8-1965. The present petitioner claiming to be the legatee und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant23; AIR1969Mys23; ILR1968KAR492; (1969)1MysLJ461
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioners are Excise Contractors who had or have secured exclusive privilege of retail vending of Toddy, Arrack or Beer in different areas or shops in the old Mysore area of the new State of Mysore. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of the levy of Education Cess on 'shop rents' in respect of Arrack, Toddy and Beer, and on Tree Tax and Tree Rent, has been challenged.2. As many common questions arise for determination in these petitions, they were heard together and we are disposing them of, by this order.3. Briefly stated, the history of the impugned levy is as follows:Education cess on the aforesaid items was sought to be levied under the Mysore Elementary Education Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Education Act,) which was enacted prior to the Constitution by the then Princely State of Mysore to amend and consolidate the law relating to elementary education in Mysore. After Bellary district (excepting 3 Taluks) b...
Tag this Judgment!