Karnataka Court October 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Srinand Talkies and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1231; 1984(2)KarLJ450
ORDERPer Narayana Rai Kudoor, J.The impugned Rule undoubtedly imposes a restriction on the licensees to exhibit not more than four cinematograph shows in a day. The element of restriction or restraint is inherent both in regulative measures as well as prohibitive or preventive measures ....The term ' prohibit' postulates negative command. Thus, from the meaning of ' regulate' and ' prohibit ' it is clear that the element of restriction is found in both but it varies only in degree.... It would therefore be reasonable to deduce that the word 'regulation' is a word of broad import having wide meaning comprehending all facts not only specifically enumerated in the Act but also embrace within its fold the powers incidental to the regulation envisaged in good faith with a view solely to the public welfare. Court has to recognise this power of the Government in public interest ........ The Rule does not either prohibit or prevent the licensees from exhibiting cinematograph shows in any day. ...
K.S. Shenoy and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR333
1. These three revisions are directed against the common order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated August 29, 1977 made in S.T.A. Nos. 474, 475 and 476 of 1976.2. The Petitioner assessee is running a Luxury Hotel called 'Moti Mahal' in Mangalore. The assessee has collected what is termed as "Service Charges" at 5 percent from the customers on the room rent and also on the value of food supplied. The assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1971, 1972 and 1973 claiming exemption of that service charges from the taxable turnover.3. The common question raised for decision is whether the service charges collected by the assessee from the customers form part of the turnover as defined under Section 2(l)(v) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. 1957 ('the Act') and if so, whether the assessee would be entitled to deduction of that charges under Rule 6 (4) (ff) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules 1957 ('The Rules').4. The Commercial Tax Officer allowed the assessee's claim for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›