Karnataka Court September 1981 Judgments
Andanur Kotrabasappa and Brothers Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC31(Kar)
Venkatachalaiah, J.1. This revision petition by the assessee under section 23 of the Sales Tax Act, 1957, is directed against the order dated 25th March, 1981, of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, made in S.T.A. No. 954 of 1980 in Appeal No. 101 of 1980-81, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in turn, affirmed the order of assessment dated 20th June, 1980, made by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Davangere, for the assessment period commencing from 1st April, 1978 to 31st March, 1979. 2. The assessee, M/s. Andanur Kotrabasappa & Bros. is a trader in Davangere. As the assessee did not comply with the statutory obligations of filing of the returns for the relevant assessment periods a proposition-notice dated 11th June, 1979, pointing out the non-compliance by the assessee in response to the earlier notice served on 10th May, 1979, and proposing to levy sales tax on the asse...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i.C., Bangalore Vs. Brooke Bond India Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ395Kant
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the Employees State Insurance Corporation is directed against the Judgment and order dated 28-9-1979 passed by the E.S.I. Court in E.S.I. Application No. 28 of 1978 before it, holding that the respondent is a seasonal factory. 2. The present respondent, namely, the brooke Bond India Limited, White Field, gave an application under S. 75 of the E.S.I. Act before the E.S.I. Court at Bangalore at No. 28/78 on the following averments : The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore claimed that the factory maintained by Brooke Bond India Ltd., White Field was not a seasonal factory and hence, he demanded for E.S.I., Contribution. That was resisted by the factory. They contended that they are engaged in manufacturing process of coffee and by definition in the E.S.I. Act itself they became seasonal factory and as such they were excluded from the operation of the E.S.I. Act. The Regional Director resisted the application by contending that since after amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthakrishna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1981
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3582
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. Both these Writ Petitions can be dealt with under common Judgment since identical issues are involved except that petitioners are two different persons.2. The petitioners are Excise contractors. They took on lease the right of retail Vending of arrack in the Taluks of Maddur and Mandya of Mandya District. That was for the Excise year 1987-88. In these Writ Petitions they are seeking a direction to the respondents not to collect illegally Re. 1/- additional duty without authority of law and if any collection has been made contrary to this, they shall refund such excess collection so far as Excise year commencing from 1-7-1987.3. The history relating to this may be briefly set out. The right to Vend arrack and intoxicant came to be regulated by the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and various Rules made thereunder. The State Government leases out the privilege of vending liquor for valuable considerations. They are colle...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Veerappa Vs. the T. Narasipur Taluk Silk Reelers and Industrial C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)KarLJ414
ORDER1. M.N. Veerappa, son of Nagarajappa, Mugoor, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, the petitioner herein, in order to contest to the Directorship of the 1st respondent Society, the term of which was for the year 198182, had filed his nomination paper. The 2nd respondent, Returning Officer, rejected that nomination paper on 9-8-1981 on the ground that Veerappa, while mentioning in his nomination paper the year for which the election was being held, had mentioned the figure (198081' instead of '1981-82', and also that while mentioning the serial number, instead of mentioning the figure '57', had mentioned as '59'. (Annexure-D).2. The proposed election was held on 76-8-1981, but without the participation of the petitioner. Results have been declared. Steps are afoot for further selection of the office bearers of that society from amongst the Directors.3. Now, on 31-8-1981 this petition is presented by Veerappa stating that the rejection of his nomination paper was incorrect; that he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›