Karnataka Court February 1981 Judgments
T. Veeranna Vs. the Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant148; 1981(2)KarLJ215
ORDER1. These, petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are concerned with the validity of a temporary permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority ('RTA'), Chitradurga in favour of respondent-3 under Section 68-F (1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act').2. The facts are not in dispute, and may briefly be stated thus : -In 1974, the State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corpora ion') which is a State Transport Undertaking under Chapter IV-A of the, Act, prepared and Published in the Official Gazette a Scheme which is generally termed as 'Davanagere Draft Scheme.' The scheme was published under Section 68-C of the Act. The entire route from Davanagere to Chitradurga covering a distance of 40 miles was a notified route thereunder. The Scheme is yet to be approved or modified by the State Government under Section 68-D (2). None knows the reason for this inordinate delay. The consequence is, there is a legal bar under Section 68-F (1-D) to grant Permits 'e...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorilal Radheysham Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC19(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. In these three writ petitions presented by the same petitioner who is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the 'glass marbles' are liable to be taxed only under entry 109 of the Second Schedule to the Act, treating is as 'glassware' at 6 per cent, or could be treated as unspecified goods on the ground that though it is made of glass, at common parlance it is treated as an article of sport and plaything and therefore liable to tax at 3 per cent under section 5(1) of the Act ?' 2. The brief facts in these there petitions are as follows : (i) Writ Petition No. 7290 of 1975 : For the assessment year 1972-73 the assessment was concluded on 25th January, 1974, by the Commercial Tax Officer, 3rd Circle, Bangalore. Out of the various goods which the petitioner is dealing, one of them is glass marbles which is used as 'plaything' by ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Konappa and Bros. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1981
Reported in: ILR1981KAR675; [1981]48STC136(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for revising the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bellary, who in turn, had confirmed the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bellary. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in agricultural produce. He is a trader as well as a commission agent. For the assessment period commencing from 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, he filed his returns. As far as the purchases and sales effected by him as a trader, the assessment has been made and that is not the subject-matter of controversy. The assessee had acted as a commission agent in respect of known principals who were producers and the turnover of commission sales during the said period came to Rs. 2,64,901.36. The assessee claimed exemption from tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Prerachand and Etc. Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant6; 1981(1)KarLJ300
ORDER1. These writ petitions are instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for the issue of writ of certiorari in each case, for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, purported to have been passed under Section 443(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, revoking the licence granted in each case for the construction of a multi-storied building. Since the same question of law is involved in these cases, they have been heard together and a common order is being passed.2. The learned counsel for writ petitioners, in different petitions, vehemently contend that the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore has no authority under the provisions of the Act to revoke the licence once granted for the construction of a building and as such the order issued in each case is one without jurisdiction and as such void. They pray that the orders passed should be quashed by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›