Karnataka Court July 1973 Judgments
S. Narayana Murthy Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ211; (1973)2MysLJ266
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. I am wholly unable to understand how on the facts stated by the Munsiff, any offence was committed under Section 228, I.P.C. The Munsiff says that the proceedings in the Court were interrupted by the accused who was working as a Stenographer under him by not coming to the Court Hall though sent for. It is admitted that at the time the Munsiff sent for the accused, the accused was typing issues in an original suit as the same had been dictated to him by the Munsiff earlier. The accused told the Daffedar who called him that he was typing the last sentence and that he would come after typing the same. After typing the last sentence, the accused went to the Court hall. There was some delay in this process. This is not enough to convict the accused under Section 228, I.P.C. The Court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the Court. In cases coming under this section, the Court is both the Prosecutor and Judge and so the power should...
Tag this Judgment!All India Sewing Machine Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR206(KAR); [1974]96ITR206(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', and referred the following questions of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is valid in law ?'2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the assessee and the department, we recast the question as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is justified in law ?'3. The assessee is a registered firm and the relevant accounting period was the financial year ended on March 31, 1966. The return of income under Section 139(2) became due on October 7, 1966. The assessee did not file its return by the said date nor did it apply for extension of time until December 17, 1966. The request for extension of time made on December 17, 1966, was not granted by t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Gurappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ213; (1973)2MysLJ238
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, to quash the order dated 14th September, 1972 by which the learned Magistrate, Shorapur, directed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kembhavi to submit a charge-sheet against the accused.2. The facts are these : One Bandappa of Kanhalli in Shorapur Taluk, Gulbarga District, filed a complaint in the Court of the J. M. F. C., Shorapur against the accused alleging that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police under Section 156 (3), Cr. P, C. The Sub-Inspector of Police, after investigation, submitted a 'B' report. The learned Magistrate, it appears, rejected the 'B' report and directed the Sub-Inspector of Police to file a charge-sheet against the accused.3. The question that arises for consideration is whether a Magistrate can direct the police to submit a charge-sheet when the police, after investigation, have ...
Tag this Judgment!Gundappa Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC375(Kar)
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. For the year 1967-68 he was assessed to tax in respect of the turnover relating to the sale of toddy by assessment order dated 10th September, 1969. The tax demanded was Rs. 2,511 out of which he paid Rs. 1,760. The balance due was Rs. 751. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore. Along with the appeal he did not file proof of payment of the balance tax amount nor did he make an application for passing an order under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner posted that appeal for admission on 16th December, 1969, on which date the Advocate for the assessee filed an application for adjournment. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 24th December, 1969, on which date neither the appellant nor his representative was present. Further, there was also no proof of the payment of the enti...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Dhundushi and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MysLJ445; [1975]35STC411(Kar)
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The respondent assesses is a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. He is a general merchant and also a commission agent at Sirsi. At the time of making the assessment for the period 25th October, 1965, to 12th November, 1966, it was discovered that he had collected a sum of Rs. 9,801.63 purporting to be a tax on the sale of goods belonging to his principles. The assessing authority took action under section 18-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, for contravention of section 18(1) of the Act and issued a notice proposing to levy a penalty of Rs. 14,700 under section 18-A of the Act and after hearing the petitioner, levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 by its order dated 2nd May, 1969. The said order was appealed before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharwar. The appeal was allowed following the decision of this court in V. B. Patil v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1970] 25 S.T.C. 449.). The second appeal preferred by the department was dismissed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Narsepalli Oil Mills Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1973
Reported in: ILR1973KAR1091; (1973)2MysLJ367; [1973]32STC599(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This matter arises under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It relates to the assessment year 1958-59. The petitioner, who is a dealer submitted a return under the Central Sales Tax Act admitting a turnover of Rs. 23,44,572.44. In support of the return, the petitioner filed certain C forms in respect of a turnover of Rs. 18,41,932.21. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary, accepted the return as also the C forms and made an order of assessment levying a tax of Rs. 33,720.27 by his order dated 30th October, 1961. It is relevant to state that the return submitted by the petitioner as also the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer were on the assumption that the turnover reported by the petitioner related to inter-State sales of oil. 2. After the assessment order was made, the petitioner appears to have realised that the sales were not inter-State sales, but were outside sales in his opinion. He, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. M. Devendrappa Setty and Sons and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1973
Reported in: 1974(1)KarLJ47; [1973]32STC476(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is a batch of seven sales tax revision petitions preferred by the State of Mysore under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. They raise a common question of law. The respondents are dealers under the Act. The period of assessment in all the cases is from 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. The respondents deal in groundnuts and/or cotton and they being 'declared goods' are liable to a single point tax under section 5(4) read with Schedule IV of the Act. Prior to 1st April, 1970, the point of levy was purchase by the last dealer in the State liable to tax under the Act. By Mysore Act 9 of 1970, the point of levy was changed and it was made 'purchase by the first or earliest of the successive dealers in the State' liable to tax under the Act. It is common ground that the amendment changing the point of levy has no retrospective or retroactive operation and is operative only with effect 1st April, 1970. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerendra Stores Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1973
Reported in: ILR1973KAR1089; (1973)2MysLJ444; [1973]32STC596(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. His business premises was inspected on 27th September, 1969, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Bangalore. He discovered several irregularities which, in his opinion, amounted to an offence under Section 26 of the Act punishable under section 29. Thereupon he issued a notice to the assessee dated 29th September, 1969, asking him to appear before him within seven days and show cause why penal action should not instituted for the offence committed and also giving the assessee an opportunity to compound the offence. This notice was served on one Shekarappa on behalf of the assessee on the same day who made an endorsement admitting the offence and offering to compound the offence by payment of composition fee which may be fixed by the department. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the offer made by the assessee and proposed the compounding fee of Rs. 1,000. The assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Babulal Dungarchand and Co. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC598(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the State against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class I Court, Gadag, in Misc. No. 124 of 1966. The respondents were assessed to sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. For the period from 24th October, 1957, to 11th November, 1958, they were assessed to tax. That assessment was challenged before this court in W.P. No. 1235 of 1962 which was allowed and the order of assessment was quashed by order dated 21st August, 1963. Thereafter, the Act was amended by Mysore Act 9 of 1964 published on 27th February, 1964. By the said amendment, the assessment which was quashed by the court was validated. It is stated that the tax assessed was subsequently paid. Proceedings were taken before the learned Magistrate under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act for recovery of penalty of Rs. 1,840 from the assessee. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that in the absence of a fr...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraja Overseas Traders Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MysLJ443; [1974]33STC315(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The petitioner was an assessee to tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1964-65. The Commercial Tax Officer who made the order of assessment in the first instance, granted deduction of an amount of Rs. 4,78,600.00; but later on he issued a notice under section 12-A of the Act and made an order of assessment on the said turnover on the ground that the same has escaped assessment. Appeals preferred by the assessee to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and later to the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, were dismissed. 2. The only question that arises for decision is, whether the assessing authority had jurisdiction to bring the turnover in dispute to tax under section 12-A of the Act. Section 12-A empowers the assessing authority to bring to tax an escaped turnover. When the turnover was already before the assessing authority when he made the first order of assessment, the said turnover cannot be said to be an e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »