Karnataka Court January 1978 Judgments

S. Y. Modagekar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Kar)0089A

Rama Jois, J. - The legality of search and seizure of certain account books made by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Belgaum the respondent in the petition, is challenged in this writ petition by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The impugned order made by the respondent being relevant is extracted below :'Order of Seizure U/s. 28(A)(3) of the K.S.T. Act, 1957 :I visited the business premises of M/s. SY. Modagekar and Sons, Ganeshwar Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum, on 10-3-1976 at about 6-30 P.M. and conducted the inspection along with C.T.P. (Enf) III, N.Z., Belgaum and the C.T.Is of the Office. At the time of my inspection Shri Shasikant Shamrao Modagekar, the Partner was present and he produced the current books of account and sale bills for inspection. On examination it was found that the assessee had written the day book upto 5-3-1976 on which the closing balance was not struck and I have signed the ...

Nanaiah Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Coorg Region, Mercara

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1978Kant106; ILR1978KAR694; 1978(1)KarLJ229

ORDER1. The petitioner purchased a motor vehicle (contract carriage) with registration No. MYA-4266. The transferor was one Choodappa. On 29-9-1975, the petitioner reported the transfer of the said vehicle to him as required under Section 31 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter an endorsement dated 30-12-1975 was issued to the petitioner and his transferor stating that enhanced rate of tax is due on the said vehicle and, therefore, they were advised to pay the tax due to the department.2. Though there is no specific mention about the payment of tax being made a condition precedent for making the necessary entries regarding the transfer of the motor vehicle, the contention of the petitioner is that on the ground of non-payment of tax, the respondent has refused to make the necessary entries regarding the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration.3. Section 31 of the Act provides for reporting the transfer of a motor vehicle both by the transferor and the transfer...

B. Ignatius Anthoney Jayaraj Vs. Immy Margaret Florence

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1978Kant69; ILR1978KAR459

V.S. Malimath, J. 1. The petitioner and the respondent are Indian Christians. The petitioner filed a petition for a declaration that the marriage between him and the respondent is null and void on the ground of fraud by invoking Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The learned District Judge, holding that the fraud alleged by the petitioner has been proved, made a decree nisi of nullity of marriage, which has come up for confirmation before us. 2. The question for consideration is as to whether the learned District Judge who has made the decree nisi of nullity of marriage had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of fraud. Section 18 of the Act provides that any husband or wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void. The grounds on which such a decree can be made are stated in Section 19 which prov...

Sanna Basappa Shankarappa Ballagodu Vs. Basappa Sathyappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1978Kant212; 1978(1)KarLJ478

ORDER1. These two writ petitions are presented by the same person against two orders of the Land Tribunal, Badami, Taluk dated 23-11-1975 produced as Exs, 'A' and 'B' along with the writ petition. By the said orders the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent in each of these writ petitions in respect of 6 acres of land in S. No. 36 and 5 acres in S. No, 81 of Pattadakal village.2. Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal had held no enquiry as contemplated under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. He pointed out that the Land Tribunal has filled up the particulars furnished by the applicant in his Form No. 7 on printed forms and that constitutes the order of the Land Tribunal.3. I have gone through the certified copies of Exs. 'A' and 'B'. The submission made by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao is fully justified. Except the filling up of the Survey n...

Lingaiah Vs. Chikkahonnalagaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1978Kant146

1. The suit for recovery ofmoney instituted by respondent-1 was dismissed by the trial Court on the preliminary question that it was barred by limitation, but the Civil Judge, in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, reversed that decree and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits. So the 1 st defendant appeals.2. On 14th May 1967 the 1st defendant, why is the father of defendants 2 to 6, borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,600/-executing a registered mortgage deed mortgaging the suit schedule properties and also agreeing to repay the money in five years from the date of the said mortgage. The mortgage deed purports to be a usufructuary mortgage, but the mortgagor did not deliver possession of the properties to the plaintiff. He continued to remain in possession and also defaulted to pay the loan. Plaintiff, therefore, brought a suit to recover the amount of Rs. 2,000/- inclusive of the interest said to be due as orally agreed upon by the parties. He has also asked for...

A.S. Karachi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1978KAR554; [1978]115ITR629(KAR); [1978]115ITR629(Karn); 1978(1)KarLJ217

Venkataramaiah, J. 1. These three petitions arise out of three orders passed under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Commr. of Agrl. I.T., Karnataka. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Shivappa Karachi was the owner of the lands with which we are concerned in these case. He had leased them out in favour of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., in the year 1947. By efflux of time the said lease came to an end on March 31, 1967. On March 27, 1967, during the subsistence of the lease, there was a partition amongst Shivappa Karachi and his sons. At that partition the lands in question were allotted to the share of A. S. Karachi and J. S. Karachi, the sons of Shivappa Karachi, who are petitioners in these three petitions. The lessee did not hand over possession of the lands to the petitioners herein immediately after the expiry of the period of lease. After some negotiations...

B. Narasimha Bhandary and Sons Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Kar)111; [1978]41STC282(Kar)

ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the levy of penalty under section 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against the petitioner made by the Commercial Tax Officer is in order. At the conclusion of the assessment in respect of the turnover of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73, it was noticed by the Commercial Tax Officer that the petitioner had committed default in payment of the advance tax payable under section 12-B(1) of the Act in not paying the same every months within the prescribed time. He, therefore, issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be taken under section 12-B(2) of the Act. In the said notice the Commercial Tax Officer set out in detail the amount of tax which the petitioner had to pay in each month from April, 1972, to March, 1973, as per the returns filed by him and the dates of actual payment of the sa...

B. Narasimha Bhandary and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Venkataramiah, J. 1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the levy of penalty u/S. 12B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'Act') against the petitioner made by the Commercial Tax Officer, is in order. At the conclusion of the assessment in respect of the turn-over of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73, it was noticed by the Commercial Tax Officer that the petitioner had committed default in payment of the advance tax payable under S. 12B(1) of the Act in not paying the same every month within the prescribed time. He, therefore, issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be taken under S. 12B(2) of the Act. In the said notice the Commercial Tax Officer set out in detail the amount of tax which the petitioner had to pay in each month from April, 1972 to March, 1973 as per the returns filed by him and the dates of actual payment of the said amounts. The petitioner wh...

O.B. Rathod Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1978]41STC198(Kar)

Venkataramiah, J. 1. The appellant is common to these two appeals and they relate to the assessment year 1970-71 and 1971-72. The appellant is a dealer in gold and silver ornaments and bullion. In the course of his business he buys articles of gold and silver from others, converts them into bullion and then sells the bullion as such. Since the purchases articles of gold and silver from other persons in the course of his business and consumes them in the manufacture of bullion for sale within the State, he is liable to pay purchases tax u/s. 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'Act') on the purchase turnover of articles of gold silver. On the sales turnover of bullion manufactures by him he has to pay sales tax u/s. 5(3)(a) read with item 74 of II Schedule of the Act. Accordingly, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer passed orders of assessment in respect of the relevant years. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment the appellant preferred appeals before the As...

Melegowda Vs. Gaibu Sab and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1978Kant71; ILR1978KAR423; 1978(1)KarLJ155

E.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. On a reference made by the learned Chief Justice, the above petition has come up before us for disposal. 2. This petition arises out of the suit O. S. No. 573 of 1974 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Mandya. The petitioner is the defendant in the said suit and respondents are the plaintiffs. The first respondent was the owner of a piece of agricultural land which is the subject-matter of the suit and he mortgaged the same with possession in favour of the petitioner under registered mortgage deed dated 3-7-1967. After the said mortgage was executed, he sold the equity of redemption in the land in favour of respondent No. 2. The respondents instituted the suit, out of which this petition arises, for redemption of the mortgage and for a decree for possession ir favour of respondent 2 on redemption. The petitioner contested the suit in so far as the relief for possession was concerned. He, however, had no objection for the mortgage being redeemed. His case wa...