Karnataka Court March 1981 Judgments

A.R. Khandasari Sugar Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial T ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1981KAR1193; 1981(2)KarLJ109; [1982]49STC178(Kar)

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered as such under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and carries on the business of producing khandasari sugar at Boothana Hosur in Mandya District. In order to produce in the khandasari unit the khandasari sugar the petitioner purchases sugarcane. Since the amendment in 1976, under section 25-B of the Act, purchase of sugarcane is subjected to levy of purchase tax at the point of purchase by the factory. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the act and was paying tax in respect of his sugarcane purchases made by him. There is no clear assertion in the statement of facts filed by the petitioner that the firm is the owner of the factory and produces khandasari sugar. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel, Shri B. V. Katageri, drew my attention to certain averments in the statement of facts in the petition and also referred me to the correspondence between the petiti...

K.C. Telsong and Sons and ors. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circl ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1981(2)KarLJ105; [1982]49STC306(Kar)

ORDERChandrakantaraj URS, J.1. This petitioner is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners who are dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act have questioned the validity of rule 27(1) of the Rules framed under the Act as well as form No. 14 prescribed under the said rules. The petitioners have stated that they are carrying on business in the capacity of selling commission agents. The petitioners, according to them, have maintained account books such as ledgers, sales bills, purchase bills, awak book, stock registers, etc. The petitioners issue sales bills whenever they effect sales as asserted by them. Their grievance is that the first respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, has called upon them to maintain records in the prescribed forms under the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules pursuant to the notification of the Government, respondent No. 3. The matter co...

Somappa Ningappa Vader and ors. Vs. Taluka Executive Magistrate, Raiba ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1981KAR854

ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10-10-80, passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Raibag, in Case No. MAG/SR-3.A, under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C., after concluding that he was unable to decide as to which of the two parties was in possession of the disputed property. The petitioners were the members of party No. I before the Executive Magistrate. 2. The learned Taluka Executive Magistrate has narrated in the impugned order that he held enquiry under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., made spot inspection and at that time the parties and their Advocates were present and at the very time the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudachi, filed a report that there was every possibility of imminent breach of peace and that he enquired with the neighbouring landholders. He has, after narrating as aforementioned, concluded that in view of the material gathered by him he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the two parties was in possession of the subject of dispute and, the...

Mysore Manufacturers and Traders Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1982Kant54; ILR1981KAR1184

ORDER1. The material facts are these: The petitioner, a Partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of plastic tops and laminations imported and installed a Dixon Pilot Quoting Machine and an Air Dryer in the Year 1973. The respondent Karnataka State Electricity Board sanctioned energy to the said installation subject to an authorised load of 98 HP and serviced the same with effect from 15-9-1973. It also fixed the monthly minimum charges payable on that basis. The petitioner has also averred that the respondent-2 never provided the required 200A fuses at their pole.2. It is further averred in the writ Petition that the 2nd respondent in the writ Petition arbitrarily disconnected the power to the petitioner on false and trumped up charges on 6-6-74 and the Petitioner immediately appealed to the Chairman on 7-6-1974 and the Chairman appointed the Chief Engineer (South) to inspect and give his findings. The Chief Engineer, by his report dt. 30-8-1974 gave his findings exonerating the pet...

Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. B.S. Dall Mills

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Kar)10; ILR1981KAR935; [1981]131ITR111(KAR); [1981]131ITR111(Karn)

Rama Jois, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'): '(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal in law was right in holding that the loss suffered by the assessee in the assessment year 1966-67, when it was assessed as an unregistered firm should be carried forward and added to the loss incurred by the assesses-firm in 1967-68, in which year it was assessed as a registered firm and that such resultant increased loss should be divided between the partners 2. Whether, on facts the circumstances of the case, and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that the loss incurred by the assessee in the assessment year 1966-67 in which year it was assessed as an unregistered firm should be carried forward and set off against the assesses-firm in the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 2. Briefly the facts of the case as set out in the ...

Khanchand Thakurdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1983]140ITR581(KAR); [1983]140ITR581(Karn)

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order made by Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Nungambakkam, Madras, dated January 4, 1977, in exercise of his jurisdiction under s. 271(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), corresponding to the present s. 273A of the Act. 2. The facts that are required to be stated briefly for a just disposal of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in hundi banking. It has its business in Trichy, Bombay and Bangalore. Separate books of account are kept in respect of the three centres and the return was filed for the assessment year 1964-65 on August 19, 1969, belatedly. The petitioner was assessed, on the return filed, to a taxable income of Rs. 1,30,100. The total tax payable by the firm was Rs. 10,934. Before the assessment was concluded on June 28, 1967, as is evidenced by the order of assessment, nearly, the whole of the tax due had been paid leaving as balance of a ...

international Instruments (P.) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income - Tax, K ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Kar)125; [1982]133ITR283(KAR); [1982]133ITR283(Karn)

Rama Jois, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Banglore Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that tax credits under section 280ZB of the income-tax Act, 1961, issued to the assessee for the assessment year 1966-67 to 1970-71 were in the nature of income requiring reduction of capital by the application of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The facts and circumstances which have given rise to the above question are : (i) The ITO computed the capital base of the assessee, a private limited company, for the purpose of making assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surtax act'), for the assessment year 1973-74, the relevant accounting year being the calendar year 1972, at Rs. 1,33,57,818. In terms of s. 4 read with s. 2 (8) of the Surtax Act he gave a statutory deduction o...

Gurusiddappa Nurandappa UppIn and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1981KAR751; [1982]49STC192(Kar)

ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this batch of 22 writ petitions filed by the forest contractors, the following questions of law arise for consideration : '(i) Whether section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inserted into it by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Act, 1976, with effect from 24th December, 1975, which imposes a tax called forest development tax on the consideration paid for the forest produce disposed of by the State Government, is unconstitutional (ii) Whether the tax imposed by section 98A of the Act which came into force from 24th December, 1975, is leviable on the balance of the amount of consideration due and paid after that date, in respect of the sale of forest produce concluded before 24th December, 1975 ?' 2. (i) Section 98A was introduced into the Act by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, promulgated by the Governor, in the first instance. Subsequently, the Ordinance was replaced by Amendment Act 15 of 1976. Sec...

Gurusiddappa Nurandappa UppIn and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1981Kant216

Rama Jois, J.1. In this batch of 22 writ petitions filed by the Forest Contractors, the following questions of law, arise for consideration:(i) Whether Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter refer-9 red to as 'the Act') inserted into it by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) 'Act, 1976 with effect from 24-12-1975, which imposes a tax called forest development tax on the consideration paid for the forest produce disposed of by the State Government, is unconstitutional?(ii) Whether the tax imposed by Section 98A of the Act which came into force from 24-12-1975 is leviable on the balance of the amount of consideration due and paid after that date, in respect of the sale of forest produce concluded before 24-12-1975?2. M Section 93A was introduced into the Act by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 promulgated by the Governor, in the first instance. Subsequently, the Ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act 15 of 1:976. Section 98A reads as follows:-'98A. L...

Shivangouda Basangouda Patil Vs. Kuttayya Danayya Chikkanath and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Sabhahit J.1. This appeal by the claimant-injured is directed against the judgment and award dated February 1, 1980, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Dharwar, in M.V.C. No. 196/1978 on its file, awarding compensation of Rs. 11,000 to him. 2. As a result of the accident that occurred on May 14, 1978, in Hangal, at about 2 p.m., the claimant sustained fracture of the shoulder bone and mandible, in addition to other injuries of a minor nature. After he was treated in the hospital for a month, his mandible was set right by operating on him and fixing a wire to the jaw. Even after the said treatment, the claimant is now left with disfigurement of face and he complains that he cannot chew hard substances as before. It is also found by the Tribunal that the pinna of his left ear is disfigured, being cut off. The Tribunal no doubt was awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 as general damages, i.e., Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering and another rs. 5,000 disfigurement of the face. ...