Karnataka Court February 1977 Judgments

The Chairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sang ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The common petitioner in these revision petitions under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, (called shortly 'the Act') is a society. For the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Commercial Tax Officer levied tax on the purchase of wool made by the society. But later the assessee filed application under rule 38 of the Rules framed under the Act for rectification of assessment orders and for refund of the tax levied and collected. The assessee contended in its application that since the purchase of wool was made entirely from its members, the turnover relating to the said purchase was not taxable under the Act in view of the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Supervisor, Wool Industry Development Co-operative Association Limited, Ranebennur. The Commercial Tax Officer acceded to that request and, following the said decision, rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Ta...

Gooty Thotappa and ors. Vs. Gooty Gurusiddappa and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant175; ILR1977KAR330; 1977(1)KarLJ231

Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal brought on behalf of defendants I and 2 in 0. S. No. 123 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Bellary, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-11-1970 made therein decreeing partition -and possession of plaintiff's 1/7th share in the plaint 'A' schedule properties (excluding, however, House Item No. 1; and Item 5 and Items 17 to 35 thereof).2. First respondent herein is the plaintiff. Appellants 1 and 2 and the second respondent are defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The parties are hereinafter referred with reference to their array and ranking in the Court below.3. it is averred in the plaint that parties were members of a Hindu undivided family and that the immovable properties in the plaint 'B' schedule and the moveables in the plaint 'B' schedule constitute coparcenary estate liable to partition, plaintiff claiming a 1/15th share therein. The relationship amongst the parties is set out in the following genealogical table...