Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1980]123ITR501(KAR); [1980]123ITR501(Karn)
Rama Jois, J.1. These twenty-two writ appeals have been presented by the appellants against the common judgment in Writ Petition No 992 of 1972, and connected writ petitions, made by a single judge dismissing the writ petitions rejecting their prayer for striking down s. 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that it is violative of art. 14 of the Constitution. 2. The brief facts which gave rise to the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise are these : The appellants, who are parents in the firm of contractors called, M/s. M. Nagappa, were not assessees to income-tax under the Act prior to 1965-66. They became assessee for the years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1968-69. While passing the assessment orders the ITO found that the appellants were liable to pay advance tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence he levied interest on the amount of advance tax withheld, as prescribed in s. 217 of the Act. Their petitions claiming e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1981Kant103
Acts/Rules/Orders: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Section 5(2); Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Sections 2(15), 3 and 4(3)OPINION Malimath, J. 1. The Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice .and Justice Bopanna has referred the following question for the opinion of the Full Bench; 'If any area has been newly added to any village, municipal area or notified area specified in Schedule 11 to the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961, by means of an appropriate, notification issued under the provisions of the law governing municipalities or village Panchayats and Local Boards, is a separate notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of that Act necessary to make the provisions of that Act applicable to that newly added area?'2. A Division Bench of this Cour4, of which one of us was a member, has answered this question in the affirmative in Balwant Shamrao Deshrande v. Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarrd, . But the referring Bench, felt that the, said decision requires re-considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1980Kant53
ORDER1. Whether , this Government 28-7-1979 are also adjourned until further can suspend the working of the Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the principal and important question that arises for my determination in this case. In order to decide that and other question it is necessary to notice the facts in the first instance.2. Some time in September 1978, Government reconstituted the Tribunal for the Muddebilial Taluk of Bijapur District, In that reconstitution, Government in addition to, appointing the Assistant Commissioner of the revenue, sub-division having jurisdiction over the taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the A. C.') as the Chairman of the said Tribunal, appointed the petitioners and respondent No. 4 who will be hereafter referred to as the petitioners as the non-official members of the said Tribunal which has been functioning with those persons ever since its reconstitution.3. On 15-6-19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1986(23)ELT118(Kar); 1979(2)KarLJ463
1. This writ petition is filed by the Nandi Hasbi Textiles Ltd. It is prayed for, among other things, to prohibit the 1st Respondent-Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hubli and the 2nd Respondent-Superintendent of Central Excise, Gadag, from demanding differential duty pursuant to the order made on 28-7-1979. 2. Further, there is a prayer for prohibiting the Respondents from initiating any coercive steps for recovery of the amount as demanded under Exhibit 'B' to the petition in the sum of Rs. 91,802.47p. There is a prayer for interim order for staying the operation of Exhibit 'B', the order subjecting the petitioner Mills to additional levy of Excise Duty. 3. It is significant to notice that there is no prayer for quashing either the order at Exhibit 'B' which subjects the Textile Mills to the Additional levy of excise duty or quashing the demand notice Exhibit 'D' on any ground whatsoever. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that under Section 35 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1980CriLJ882
ORDERM. Nagappa, J.1. This petition by the State is directed against the order dated 30-1.1-1977 passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1977 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad in ease No. E. C. 5/77.2. Few facts of the ease are: One Parappa Malshetty the respondent herein is a licensed cement dealer in Dharwad. The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad received information that the licensed dealers of cement were charging higher rates for the cement then the controlled price and that the respondent was one among them. He therefore ordered the Tahsildar, Dharwad to conduct a raid on the shop of the respondent. The Tahsildar accordingly on 27-4-1977 held a trap on the shop of the respondent. The Tahsildar signed three ten rupee notes and sent one Channabasappa P. W. 1 to purchase one bag of cement from the respondent. Accordingly P. W. 1 went to the shop and purchased one bag of cement. The respondent charged Rs. 23.50 paise for t...
Tag this Judgment!