Karnataka Court July 1973 Judgments
Manilal Monaji Somayya Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Gokak and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MysLJ365; [1973]32STC541(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioner was an assessee to tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1970-71. His tax liability was assessed at Rs. 2,010 for the year ending 19th October, 1971. The assessing authority found that the assessee had not paid the advance tax as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 12-B of the Act. Therefore, by the impugned order dated 20th July, 1972, he levied the maximum penalty provided under sub-section (2) of section 12-B of the Act at one-and-half times the tax assessed. The said order has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer has not given any reasons for imposition of the maximum penalty. 2. The Act provides for imposition of penalty for failure to pay every month the advance tax on the dealer's taxable turnover during the preceding month. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in payment of tax in advance every month. As observed by th...
Tag this Judgment!B. Damodar and Company Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR70(KAR); [1974]97ITR70(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The petitioner was an assessee to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67, The assessing authority determined the amount of tax at Rs. 14,850 after adjusting a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards the advance tax paid. The balance tax due is Rs. 12,850 and a demand notice was issued for the said balance amount. 2. Penalty proceedings were taken under Section 271(1) of the Act and the penalty amount was computed on the total tax assessed but not on the balance tax payable. The revision petition preferred by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax was dismissed. 3. The only contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner assesses before us was that tax payable is not the same thing as tax assessed as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vegetable Products Ltd., : [1973]88ITR192(SC) According to the said decision, the amount of penalty has to be computed on the balance tax due for which notice of demand is issued afte...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Parameswara Bhatta and Bros. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MysLJ363; [1973]32STC547(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act. He obtained a certificate of registration for the year 1963-64 under section 10 of the Act. The certificate mentioned that the goods covered by the registration are 'general goods'. The petitioner submitted a return of turnover of Rs. 9,190.19 in respect of tarpaulins, brass and copper utensils and agricultural implements. The said turnover was assessed under the Act. The registering authority being of the opinion that although the goods in question were not specified in the certificate of registration, the petitioner-dealer had issued declarations in form C to the effect that they are covered by the registration certificate. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty shall not be levied under section 10(b) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation contending, inter alia, that he bona fide believ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Shankaran and ors. Vs. Iype Cherian
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1377; (1973)2MysLJ426
ORDERHonniah, J.1. The facts that have given rise to these petitions are these:The respondents in these two petitions filed a complaint against the petitioners who are officials of Sudarshan Trading Co., Madras alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on 12-6-1972 and he proceeded to register the case against the petitioners under Section 420. I.P.C. Having done so, the learned Magistrate referred the complaint under Section 202, Cr.P.C. to the Inspector of Police, Tumkur Town for investigation.2. The Inspector of Police, Tumkur Town, after investigation submitted a 'B' report stating that the allegations made by the complainant were false. Thereafter on 25-8-1972 the learned Magistrate directed issue of process against the petitioners. It is against these orders that the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners.3. The complaint recites that the first accused being Manag...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Tahair Vs. Syed Khaja Ali and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant307; AIR1973Mys307; (1973)2MysLJ94
Venkataswami, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal under Section 96 of the C. P. Code. The suit in question was O. S. No. 72 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge at Bidar. The suit was for declaration of title, possession, mesne profits and incidental reliefs and filed by the respondents herein. The suit has been eventually decreed on terms. Hence this appeal by the defendant.2. The case of plaintiffs is that they succeeded to the suit property as heirs of their father, and that the defendant had no manner of right, title, or interest in the said property after the expiry of the period stipulated under an alleged mortgagethe terms of which need not be set out for our present purpose. The defence in the main is that the defendant was put in possession of these suit properties pursuant to an agreement to sell entered into by the father of the plaintiffs in the year 1957, produced and marked in the suit as Exhibit D-5.3. The court below came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell was...
Tag this Judgment!Manikappa Dhulappa Koli Vs. Sidram Dhulappa Koli and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant308; AIR1973Mys308; ILR1973KAR834; (1973)2MysLJ98
Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 36 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bidar, is directed against the judgment of dismissal made in the above suit.2. The suit was for a decree for permanent injunction on the basic of possessory title. In the Court below the suit was valued for purposes of Court-fee at Rupees 307.38, but for the purpose of jurisdiction, the value of the land has been stated to be Rs. 36,000/-. Presumably on account of the latter valuation, although the Court-fee paid on the plaint was only Rs. 25/- the learned civil Judge heard the matter and disposed of it as aforesaid. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the decree, has preferred the first appeal under Section 96. Civil Procedure Code, paying the same court-fee as had been paid in the Court below.3. On behalf of the respondents Sri Muralidhar Rao raised a preliminary objection that the appeal ought to have been presented before the District Court having jurisdiction over the area conce...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›