Karnataka Court August 1974 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.
The State of Mysore Vs. Hanjarimal Saremalji
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC206(Kar)
ORDERSrinivas Iyengar, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the State against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.T.A. No. 286 of 1970 dated 23rd May, 1972.2. The Commercial Tax Officer sought to rectify the original assessment that had been made for the year 1964-65 (5th November, 1964, to 24th October, 1965) consequent upon the retrospective amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act and introduction of section 6(1A). The assessee would be exempt in respect of inter-State sales of cotton if he was able to show that he had not collect the sales tax as provided under section 10(1) of the amending Act of 1969.3. The bills produced by the assessee indicated that the price charged was 'inclusive of the tax'. The bills did not separately mention the Central sales tax. It does not also appear that any amount had been separately credited in the accounts in respect of the sales tax, if any, collected. The Commercial Tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee ...
B.S. Guddad and Sons Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR255; 1974(2)KarLJ406; [1974]34STC421(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J. 1. These sales tax revision petitions - one by the assessee and the other by the State - are directed against the order of the Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, made in S.T.A. No. 597 of 1972 on 19th April, 1973. 2. The assessee is a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act). For the year 1969-70, the assessee returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,24,686.67. But the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, III Circle, Hubli, who is the assessing authority, determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 8,85,407.09, which included a turnover of Rs. 2,40,223.84 relating to the purchase of paddy, and a sum of Rs. 10,183.25 relating to the purchase of firewood. The assessee contended that purchases of paddy were made from agriculturists or non-registered dealers and, as such, are not liable to be taxed under section 6 of the Act. The said contention was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, D...
The State of Karnataka Vs. Vikram Chemical Laboratories and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ332
Nesargi, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29-9-1973 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I Court), Bangalore City in C.C. No. 341 of 1971 acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. P.W. 1, P. L. Narasimhan, the Drugs Inspector visited the Government Medical Stores, Bangalore, which is a licensed premises, on 10-2-1970. He took samples in four portions of the drug Potassium Bicarbonate I. P. Batch No, 116. P.W. 2 H. Abdul Rahim, Assistant Director and P.W. 3, K. Venkatarama lyengar, Secretary of the Government Medical Stores, who were in possession of this drug were present at that time. The seizure, according to the prosecution, was made under Section 22 (b) of the Act. P. Ws. 2 and 3 disclosed the name of M/s. Vikram Chemical Laboratories, Bangalore as the supplier as required under Section 18-A of the Act. P.W. 1 sent one...
Lalita Shivaram Ubhaykar Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Xii Circle, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC267(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner was a director of a company, namely, M/s. Hi-Precision Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as to company). The company was a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. It was assessed to payment of sales tax under both the Acts in respect of several years. The company committed default in payment of sales tax due from it. The sales tax authorities initiated proceedings to recover the sales tax dues from the company by proceeding against the petitioner who was its director and in the course of the said proceedings, the Tahsildar attached certain properties belonging to the petitioner personally and put them up for sale. Aggrieved by the said recovery proceedings, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. There is no provision in the statute which authorities recovery of arrears due from a company by proceeding against its director. The proceedings are therefore without jurisdiction. They are accord...
Suganda Bai Vs. Sulu Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1533; 1975(1)KarLJ96
ORDER1. This revision preferred by the plaintiff arises out of an application made by defendant 1 for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with her alleged possession of the suit properties.2. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Aland for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. The cause of action as stated in the plaint is that the defendants began to interfere with the plaintiffs possession in the year 1970. After the suit was filed, the plaintiff did not ask for any temporary injunction. In the year 1973, defendant 1 made an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the defendants' possession of the suit property. That application was allowed by the trial Court and the said order was confirmed by the appealed Court. It is against the said order of the ...
K. Shankare Gowda Vs. S. Bharathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR322; 1975(1)KarLJ87
ORDER1. The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She brought a suit against her husband in O. S. No. 388 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Chinta-mani, for maintenance. In that suit, the defendant-husband raised various contentions. He did not dispute that the plaintiff is his wife. In the suit, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. III for making an order granting interim maintenance. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties, made an order tothe effect that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month from the date of the suit. It is against the said order that this revision petition is directed.2. It was urged by Sri M. S. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in a suit for recovery of maintenance the Court has no jurisdiction to order interim maintenance. In support of that contention, he relied on the decisions in Mohd. Abdul Kahman v. Tajunnissa Begum, : AIR1953Mad420 and Appanna v. Secthamma, : AIR1972...
M. Nanjappa Vs. M.P. Muthuswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant146; ILR1975KAR263; 1975(1)KarLJ122
1. This second appeal is by the defendant against the decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 25 of 1966 modifying the decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore (Urban), in Original Suit No. 83 of 1964. The plaintiff has also preferred cross-objections.2. The respondent Muthuswamy was employed by the appellant Nanjappa as a salesman under the contract Ex. D-1 dated 2nd January, 1962. The contractual period stipulated therein is five years. The salary fixed was Rs. 120 per month and Muthuswamy was entitled to annual increments at the rate of Rs. 10. The contract also provides that in the event of Muthuswamy deciding to start his own business, he is free to quit the job on the completion of three years of service. On the same day another contract came into existence between the parties under which Nanjappa agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 80 per month if Muthuswamy secured good business from places outside the city of Bangalore. It is...
H.R. Jayadeva Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Hospet
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC222(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order made by the First Class Magistrate, Hospet, in M.C. No. 53 of 1973.2. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Hospet, instituted proceedings before the First Class Magistrate, Hospet, for recovery of Rs. 739.30 from the petitioner. The petitioner preferred his objections contending that he separated from his father 8 years back, that no assets, either movable or immovable, belonging to his deceased father came to him and further that his father H. Rudraiah, who was carrying on the business has left other legal representatives also. Without going into the merits of the contentions urged, the Magistrate held that these contentions cannot be considered as the assessment has become final and he relied on section 32 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. That section has nothing to do with the contentions urged by the petitioner.3. It is not clear from the order of the Magistrate or the papers placed before us wheth...
The State of Karnataka Vs. Abdul Nabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ746
Honniah, J.1. This appeal by the State is against the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, Raichur, dated 3-10-1973, in C.C. No. 133 of 1973, by which he acquit-ted. the accused.2. The case against the accused was that he dishonestly abstracted, consumed or improperly used electric energy and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as tho 'Act').3. The prosecution in support of its case examined S. Anjaneyalu (P. W. 5), Junior Engineer of the Karnataka Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) working in the vigilance squad. The work of the squad was to detect unlawful consumption of energy. His evidence was that when he checked the installation bearing No. 2334, he found that the meter was not working even though the lights were burning. On examination he found direct connection had been made from the main bypassing the meter. Relying up...
C.R. Venkatesha Rao Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR94(KAR); [1975]99ITR94(Karn); 1975(1)KarLJ120
Venkataramiah, J.1. The petitioner is an Associate Member of the Institute of Engineers (India), in the civil engineering division. He is registered as a valuer of immovable properties under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act. But his application for registration as a registered valuer under the Wealth-tax Act was rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. 2. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Section 34AB of the Wealth-tax Act provides for the registration of valuers. Sub-section (2) of section 34AB states that any person who possesses the qualification prescribed in this behalf may apply to the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the prescribed form for being registered as a valuer under that section. The relevant part of rule 8A of the Wealth-tax Rules by which the qualifications of registered valuers are prescribed reads as follows ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »