Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1971]79ITR573(KAR); [1971]79ITR573(Karn)
Govind Bhat, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal dated 4th October, 1966, made in Revision No. 281 of 1965 (H. L. R.) by which the Tribunal, while allowing the revision petition, cancelled the attachment and sale proclamation of the properties belonging to the 1st respondent, Dandi Mohamad Hussain. 2. The matter arises in this way : The 1st respondent filed a revision petition before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, alleging that his properties were attached for recovery of arrears of Income-tax due not from him but from one Dandi Mohamad Ismail and that the 1st respondent is not the defaulter under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is common ground that the properties of the 1st respondent, Dandi Mohamad Hussain, were attached by the Tahsildar of Raichur, pursuant to a certificate issued by the Income-tax Office under section 46 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on January 8, 1963. The 1st responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1971Kant16; AIR1971Mys16; (1970)1MysLJ457; [1970]25STC381(Kar)
ORDER1. The question raised in this revision petition is, whether printing types are accessories to the printing machinery and as such liable to sales tax under Section 5 (3) (a) read with Serial No. 20 of the Second Schedule of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. The petitioner is a manufacturer of printing types. His turnover of sale of printing types for the assessment year from 1-4-1966 to 31-12-1966 was assessed at the rate applicable to 'all machinery and spare parts and accessories thereof provided in Serial No. 20 of the Second Schedule of the Act. In the appeal preferred by the Assesses to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal held that printing types are accessories to the printing machine on the ground that printing types are essential without which printing cannot be done, and therefore printing types are accessories to the printing machinery within the purview of serial No. 20 of the Second Schedule, liable to be taxed under Section 5 (3) (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant270; AIR1970Mys270
Narayana Pai, J.1. The appellant was the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 30 of 1956 on the file of the District Court, Bangalore, filed by respondents 1 to 4 as the plaintiffs. The appellant 2nd defendant is the eldest son of Chikka Munisamisa who was the 1st defendant in the suit. The four plaintiffs, the appellant and the 3rd defendant (5th respondent in the appeal) are the six sons of the said Chikka Muniswamisa. Chikkamunisamisa died after filing his written statement but before trial. His wife and two daughters were later impleaded as supplemental defendants 4, 5 and 6. They are respondents 6, 7 and 8 in the appeal.2. The father Chikka Muniswamisa appears to have been divided from his brothers many years ago. He carried on business along with his sons and amassed considerable wealth. Besides large amount of cash, he also acquired several immovable properties in Bangalore.3. The property which is the subject-matter of this suit called the timber yard in the evidence is a vacant land 285'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1971]79ITR194(KAR); [1971]79ITR194(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. Thee petitioner, Srimathi S. B. Gowramma, is one of the partners of the firm by name 'Punniah Group of Estates, Sunticoppa', and is an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act.' During the assessment year 1967-68 there were five partners in the said firm, and one of them was a minor son of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a return of income under the Act for the Assessment year 1967-68, in the status of an 'individual'. In the said return she included not only her share of the income from the firm but also the share of her minor son. On the basis of the said return, the respondent, Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coorg District, Mercara, made an assessment order on October 31, 1968, by which he added the income of the petitioner's minor son to the income of the petitioner and assessed the tax on the said total income. On January 22, 1969, the petitioner made an application to the respondent under section 37 (2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1970)1MysLJ451; [1970]25STC489(Kar)
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. Both the writ petition and the sales tax revision petition referred to above can be disposed of together. The few facts necessary for the purpose are as follows : For the assessment year 1964-65, a tax of Rs. 14,332.80 was determined as payable by the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act. On 20th June, 1968, the Commercial Tax Officer, Raichur, issued a notice to the petitioner demanding the said tax together with a penalty of Rs. 10,104.36 for default in payment of the said tax. The penalty, according to the officer, had accrued under section 13(2)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the state Act. The petitioner paid only the tax and did not pay the penalty demanded. Because of non-payment of the penalty, the Commercial Tax Officer filed an application under section 13(3)(b) of the state Act before the Munsiff Magistrate at Raichur, for the recovery of the sum due as penalty, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1971]80ITR705(KAR); [1971]80ITR705(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64, for which the relevant accounting year ended with March 31, 1963. Sri V. C. Rajarathnam was a member of a Hindu undivided family along with his father, Shri V. Chinnaswamy Mudaliar, and his other brothers. There was a partition of the assets of the Hindu undivided family under the partition deed dated February 17, 1943. A copy of the partition deed is annexure 'A' and forms part of the statement of the case. The partition deed recited that the movables belonging to the Hindu undivided family had already been divided and that the immovable properties were divided as per the schedules attached to the document. Thereafter, Rajarathnam and his sons constituted a Hindu undivided family. In 1946, Rajarathnam acquired 25 shares of the face value of Rs. 25,000, in the United Engineering Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the company'. Later, he acquire another 25 shares in the same company. Thus he held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1970]26STC114(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner was granted an exemption certificate under rule 25-B of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules in certificate bearing No. 10/147/6/61 dated 13th April, 1961. The said certificate was cancelled by an order dated 20th October, 1964, with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1961. The petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation in so far as it is given retrospective effect with effect from 1st July, 1961. Sub-rule (2) of rule 25-B states that the certificate of recognition issued shall be valid from the date of receipt of application under sub-rule (1) to the date of cancellation. It is clear from the said sub-rule that while the certificate of recognition will operate from the date of receipt of application its cancellation cannot have retrospective operation. The certificate of recognition granted under sub-rule (1) will be valid till the date of its cancellation. It is clear that the impugned order in so far as it is brought into effect from 1st July, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1970]25STC449(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. This writ petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notice No. DR/CT/W-35/B dated 3rd July, 1969, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri, respondent 1, under section 18-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act, proposing to levy a levy a penalty up to Rs. 13,080.93. The petitioner is a dealer under the Act carrying on business on its own account and also as a commission agent on behalf of its known principals. At the time of making the assessment for the period from 5th November, 1964, to 24th October, 1965, the petitioner objected to the levy of sales tax on the turnover of sales of chillies effected as commission agents of agricultural producers. The assessing authority rejected the objection on the ground that the assessee had not filed a list of its principals alleged to be agriculturists and that it had merely asserted that they were agriculturists. On appeal preferred by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1970]26STC87(Kar)
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. These two revision petitions have been preferred by the State and are directed against a common assessee and they relate to two separate assessment years. The respondent is a manufacturer of typewriter ribbons with a branch office at Bangalore. During the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, it submitted returns in regard to the sales of such article. The assessee contended that it was liable to pay sales tax as per the general provision under section 5(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, at 2 per cent. of the turnover. The assessing authority sought to levy tax on the basis that the typewriter ribbons were parts of typewriters and as such fell within entry 18 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that typewriter ribbons were not parts of typewriters falling under entry 18 of the Second Schedule. 2. The question of law arising for decision is, whether typewriter ribbons fall under entry 18 of the Second Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1970]26STC139(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is an appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1965-66. The dispute relates to the liability of the assessee to be assessed on the turnover of worn out and torn old clothing pieces collected by him through hawkers from the public. The Commercial Tax Officer held that sales of such old clothing were taxable and accordingly levied a tax of Rs. 37.06 for the year 1965-66. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner who held that the goods in dispute were rags and they were not liable to tax, being covered by entry 8-A of the Fifth Schedule. Consequently, he set aside the assessment. Thereafter the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised the order of the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers under section 22-A of the Act. He was of the view that the cloth rages are different from worn out and torn clothings and that worn out and torn clothings do not come under entry 8-A of the Fifth Schedule. Consequently, he revised the order...
Tag this Judgment!