Karnataka Court May 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.
Sha Vajeshanker Vasudev and Co. and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC132(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against the notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer proposing to rectify the orders of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Following Yaddalam's case ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231) the sales tax turnover in inter-State sales were exempted by the first appellate authority in the cases arising under Writ Petitions Nos. 4581 and 5097 of 1969. In the case arising under Writ Petition No. 5150 of 1969 the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal granted the exemption. After the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, came into force the Commercial Tax Officer who is the assessing authority straightway issued notices to the petitioners proposing to make rectifications of the assessment orders under rule 38 bringing to tax the turnovers that were exempted by the appellate authorities. As held by us in several writ petitions, the assessing authority is not competent to make rectification of the assessment orders where the exemptions were ...
Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1970
Reported in: (1970)1MysLJ487; [1970]26STC36(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary, dated 30th August, 1969. The petitioner, a dealer in cotton, collected sales tax on sales of cotton in inter-State transactions during the period 10th November, 1964, to 31st March, 1968. Tax was not legally leviable on such transactions according to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231). Subsequently the petitioner refunded the said amounts to its customers. The 1st respondent in paragraph 4 of his order has found that the petitioner-firm has actually refunded the tax collected to its buyers long before the date of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969. The 1st respondent, however, held that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption from tax under section 10 of the Ordinance. According to the 1st respondent the benefits of section 10 are not available when the dealer makes collect...
Amaravathi Service Co-operative Society and ors. Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant243; AIR1970Mys243; (1970)1MysLJ465
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioners are either growers of sugar-cane or Co-operative Societies of Sugar-cane Growers. During the seasons, 1960-61 and 1961-62, they had supplied sugar-cam; to India Sugar & Refineries Ltd., Hospet (hereinafter referred to as the Factory) which is one of the respondents in all these petitions. In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have assailed the order of the Government of India made under Sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966, exempting the Factory from payment of additional price for sugar-cane purchased by it during these two years. For one of those years, the exemption is complete and for another year, partial.2. Before considering the contentions of the petitioners, it is convenient to look at the relevant legislation.3. Parliament enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide in the interest of the general public, for the control of production, sup...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›