Karnataka Court January 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hukmichand and Brothers Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1970
Reported in: [1970]25STC320(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. The question raised in this sales tax revision petition is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the deduction of the cost of packing materials by virtue of rule 6(4)(f)(ii) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The assessment is under the Central Sales Tax Act and the transaction is one relating to inter-State trade. The assessment relates to the period 18th October, 1963 to 4th November, 1964. The Central Sales Tax Act has been amended by Central Act 28 of 1969. Section 5 of the Amending Act has inserted a new provision, namely, section 8-A in the Central Sales Tax Act. Sub-section (2) of the said section states that 'save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), in determining the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of this Act, no deduction shall be made from the aggregate of the sale prices.' In other words, the only deduction that could be made from the turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act is the amount provided under sub-section (1) of section 8A ...
Ramazan Bi Vs. Bhimsen Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mys195; 1970CriLJ1113; (1970)1MysLJ218
ORDER1. The petitioner before this Court was the complainant in C. C. 195/3 of 1969 on the file of the first Class Magistrate, Raichur. He filed a complaint under Sections 166 and 167, Indian Penal Code against the accused, who is a Patwari (Village Accountant). The accused raised a preliminary objection that the case could not be proceeded with as sanction of the Government under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code had not been obtained. The learned Magistrate upheld the objection of the accused and dismissed the complaint. In this revision petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of the said order passed by the learned Magistrate.2. Sri Raikote, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that under Section 16 of the Mysore LandRevenue Act, 1964, (which will be hereinafter be referred to as the Act), the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to appoint Village Accountants. He argues that there is no delegation of the power of appointment by ...
P. Cheradappa Pai Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR313(KAR); [1970]77ITR313(Karn); (1970)1MysLJ260
Govinda Bhat, J.1. These two writ petitions arise under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. Pursuant to a notice issued on 26th September, 1966, the petitioner filed two returns for the assessment year 1965-66 and 1966-67 furnishing only the extent of the areca gardens from which he derived agricultural income with their survey and sub-division numbers; but he did not furnish the particulars of the income, expenses, etc. In response to the Form No. 5 notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondents and produced before him copies of a registered partition deed dated 10th January, 1958, and three term lease deeds in respect of the areca gardens from which income is derived. On perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner and hearing his contentions the respondents came to the conclusions that there was only a partial partition in the family under the partition deed, dated 10th January, 1958, and that in respect of the properties descri...
K.H. Srinivasan Vs. State of Mysore by Chief Secretary to Government a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant185; AIR1970Mys185; (1970)1MysLJ210
Narayana Pat, J.1. This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 13 of 1961 on the file of the District Judge, Mercara.2. The relevant facts may be briefly summarised as follows:-- For the purpose of opening of footpath giving access to a High School and the expansion of the Market place at Chowdalu village within the limits of Somwarpet notified area, a notification dated 3-1-1956 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published 'proposing to acquire 3 acres 21 cents of land. After necessary statutory investigation, a further notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 17-5-1956 was published declaring that 2 acres and 19 cents of land described therein is required for a public purpose mentioned above. Out of the land so acquired 47 cents out of survey No. 191/1 and 48 cents out of survey No. 193/4 belonged to the appellant Srinivasan. He did not file any objection during the acquisition proceedings,3. The entire extent of 2 acres 19 cents however, was not ac...
Shivaputra Mahadevappa Hadapad Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1970
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1551
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner before this Court was the accused in the trial Court. He was convicted by the trial Court for having committed an offence under Section 304.A, I. P. C., and sentenced to two years E. I. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to three months R. I. He was further convicted for an offence under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo S. I. for fifteen days. In the appeal filed by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed his conviction for an offence under Section 304.A, I. P. C. but altered the sentence to three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default to suffer S. I. for three months. The conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 3 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act was also confirmed but the fine was reduced to Rs. 50. His conviction for the offence under Section 110 of the Indian Motor Vehiolea Act was set asi...
The State of Mysore Vs. A. Vamana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1970
Reported in: [1973]32STC520(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. This is a sales tax revision petition preferred by the State under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 160 of 1968. The respondent, who is the assessee, is a firm registered under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, as a dealer and was carrying on the business of retreading tyres. The assessee was authorised to purchase certain goods for resale under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee, during the assessment year 1962-63, used the said articles for retreading tyres which, according to the assessing authority, amounts to a works contract and is not in the nature of manufacture. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued proposing to levy a penalty of Rs. 2,452.10 since, in the opinion of the assessing authority, the assessee had not made use of the materials for the purpose of manufacture. The assessee appeared before the assessing authority and filed written objections. After h...
Murgeppa Rudrappa Gugwad and anr. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR211(KAR); [1970]77ITR211(Karn)
Venkataswami, J.1. This writ petition is directed against a notice of demand of agricultural income-tax issued to two brothers who constitute members of a joint Hindu family. It is not disputed that one of them had submitted the return as the 'karta' of the Hindu undivided family. 2. For the assessment year 1962-63, the petitioners were served with the notice of demand, annexure 'B'. The case of the petitioners is that before issuing such a notice of demand, they were not served with a notice of the assessment as required by section 31 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and also that an opportunity contemplated under section 19(4) of the Act had not been afforded to them before making the assessment in question. Under section 19(4) of the Act, before making a best of show cause as to why he should not be assessed in accordance with that provision, and it is not disputed before us that such an opportunity was not afforded to the assesse...
Padmanabha Narayana Khadilkar Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Put ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR208(KAR); [1970]77ITR208(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This writ petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of assessment dated 30th June, 1967, and a notice of demand of the same date issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur, South Kanara District - the respondent in the above petition. The petitioner is an agriculturist owning areca and coconut gardens in Mundaje Village of Belthangady Taluk in the District of South Kanara. For the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioner filed an application for composition of tax under section 67 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. On that application composition was granted by order made on August 6, 1963, by the respondent under section 67(4) of the Act. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid the compounding fee as mentioned in the order of composition. On August 2, 1966, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Shimoga Circle, issued a notice to the petitioner stating tha...
Ram Singh Vs. R. Susila Bai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mys201; 1970CriLJ1116; (1970)2MysLJ138
ORDER1. The Petitioner before this Court was the first accused in the Trial Court. The second accused before the Trial Court was the second wife of the first accused and the complainant in the case was his first wife. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 494, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court. The trial Court also convicted the second accused for an offence under Section 494 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code. In the appeal filed by the accused the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal of the second accused and acquitted her. So far as the appeal filed by the first accused 13 concerned, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed his conviction and the sentence. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on him by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The petitioner married the respondent-complainant at Jolarpet about nine years before the complaint. After li...
Rastapur Sharanappa Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR800(KAR); [1970]77ITR800(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. One Rastapur Muniappa died on August 19, 1961. The deceased along with his son constituted a Hindu undivided family at the time of his death. The deceased had a one-half share in the joint family business. Since the deceased died on August 19, 1961, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that the computation of the estate duty had to be made under Section 34(1)(c) of the Act. In computing the value of the deceased's share in the commission business, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty added Rs, 10,000 as the value of the deceased's one-half share in the goodwill of the commission business. On appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty upheld that the value of the goodwill had to be included in the dutiable estate, but reduced the value of the deceased's one-half share to Rs. 8,250. Before the Appellate Controller, the accountable person contended that Section 34(1)(c) of the Act was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »