Karnataka Court February 1984 Judgments
Abdul Raheem and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant66; 1984(2)KarLJ172
ORDER1. These two petitions are presented by two of the candidates who filed their nomination papers to the office of the Councillors of the Town Municipality of Arasikere in accordance with the calendar of events issued by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar and Returning Officer under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The undisputed facts which are necessary to be stated for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows: The petitioner in the first of the petitions is a voter living in Division No. 1 of the aforementioned Town Municipality while the petitioner in the second of the petitions is a voter residing in the V Division of the same Municipality. Both of them, filed their nominations in response to the calendar of events issued by the Returning Officer, on 5-7-1983. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was taken up by the respondent Returning Officer. on 7-7-1983. The nomination papers of these two petitioners came to be...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. Bangalore Chemical and Manufa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR272
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Bangalore Chemical and Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited, which is respondent-1 and will be here-after referred to as the owner, inter alia owns a building bearing No. 41 situated on 72nd Cross Road, VI Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10, or Corporation Division No.2 of Bangalore City Admittedly, the building has been constructed on or before 1-10-1969 on a site area measuring 138' x 275' and consists of a built area of 99.50 squares.2. Under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Mysore Act No. 69 of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) which is now replaced by the uniform Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act of 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as the uniform Act) that came into force in the City ofBangalore on 1-6-1977, the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Commis-sioner) fixed the annual letting value of the said building from 1-10-1969...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Perfumery Works Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: [2000]74STC118(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajashekhara Murthy, J.1. This arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated September 27, 1979 in S.T.A. No. 177 of 1979. 2. The assesses-firm are manufacturers and dealers in agarbathi. The firm was assessed to tax under section 6 in respect of its purchase turnover in raw agarbathis for the year 1975-76. Assessee challenged this assessment in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as also in further appeal before the Tribunal and both the appellate authorities confirmed the assessment of the disputed purchase turnover. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has come up by way of this revision petition. 3. The disputed turnover relates to the purchases of raw agarbathi by the assessee from unregistered dealers. The said raw agarbathis are subjected to further processing by the assessee by dipping them in scented solution so as to bring out a new product of different grades and standards for being marketed as scented agarbathis. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayana Bhatta Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant7; 1985(2)KarLJ157
ORDER1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue a special permit without insisting upon the payment of grant-fee and also to declare that the word' grant occurring in R. 120(iv) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (here in after be referred to a s the 'Rules'), is null and void and to strike down the same. He has also sought for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to refund the excess amount collected on all the permits referred to in para-2 of the writ petition.2. The petitioner is a. Tourist Operator. He is operating his tourist vehicles under special permits under the provisions of S. 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter be referred to as the Act). According to the case of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is collecting Rs. 50/- for each application filed by the petitioner for grant of a special permit, and in addition to this, the 3rd res...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Nirvane Gowda and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Agrl. Income-tax, Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR382(KAR); [1984]148ITR382(Karn)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. These two revision petitions arise out of the common order, dated February 18, 1981, passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. 2. The petitioner-assesses is a partnership firm owning coffee estates. For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the assessee was granted renewal of registration by the Agrl. ITO. The assesses-firm consists of six partners and is evidenced by a deed of partnership, dated May 21, 1973. Clause (4) of the Partnership deed reads : 'Admission of minors. - H. N. Nanjegowda, H. N. Swamy, H. N. Ravi kumar and Kumar H. N. Chadrakala are admitted only to the benefits of the firm. They shall be entitled to the profits shall not be liable for the losses, if any. The minors may elect to become full-fledged partners after attaining majority.' 3. Clauses(5) provides for sharing of profits. During the previous year relating to the assessment year 1977-78, one of the minor...
Tag this Judgment!D.G. Graig Jones Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Kar)250; [1984]148ITR297(KAR); [1984]148ITR297(Karn)
1. These four revision petitions arise out of the common order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated August 7, 1981, made in AIT. Nos. 83 to 86 of 1980. 2. The petitioner is an owner of coffee estates and is an assessee under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act'). In the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68, the assessee estimated the value of the coffee points at different rates in her returns. The assessments for these years were completed on the basis of the final dividend as declared by the Coffee Board which was slightly more than the value estimated by the assessee for each of the years. 3. The assessee throughout contended that her estimate should be accepted for the respective years and not the final value as declared by the Coffee Board subsequently. But that contention was not accepted by any of the authorities below solely on the ground, that by the time the assessments were done, the Coffee Board had...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Gajanana Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR243(KAR); [1984]148ITR243(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of the order dated May 5, 1978, of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Bangalore, made under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The Commissioner by the said order set aside the assessments for the years 1971-72 to 1974-75. He has directed the assessing officer to include four acres having acoconut plants which had then not reached the stage of yielding which the assessing officer has excluded for reaching the conclusion that the petitioner was non-assessable. 2. The only question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the lands which are having commercial crops but not yet started yielding any income should or should not be included for the purpose of determining the exemption limit provided under the then proviso (ii) of Part I of the Schedule under s. 3 of the Act. The said proviso (ii) reads : 'SCHEDULE PART I (See Section 3) Rates of Agricultural Income-tax.......
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC81(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. This revision arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 22nd November, 1978, passed in S.T.A. No. 821 of 1976. 2. The petitioner-company manufactures synthetic fibres. For the purpose of such manufacture, the company purchases firewood in large quantities from several suppliers in South Kanara District and elsewhere. The company has a purchase depot at Mangalore and other places. For the assessment year 1973-74, the petitioner claimed a deduction in a sum of Rs. 1,25,808.08 from the total turnover, as transportation charges paid to the sellers of firewood. The Commercial Tax Officer, Mangalore, treated this item as part of the price of the firewood and included it in the taxable turnover. In the appeal preferred against the assessment, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore, upheld the assessment and dismissed the appeal. In further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal deleted the turnover in dispute and directed the ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rama Murthy and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Kant182; 1984(2)KarLJ236
ORDER1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), these cases were posted before us for disposal.2. As the petitioners in these cases have challenged the validity of one and the same Act, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. As early as on 31-12-1932, the then Maharaja of Mysore. who was the sovereign Ruler of the then Princely State of Mysore, a model Princely State, aided by a representative assembly and a legislative council, gave his assent to a fairly simple enactment called the Mysore Betting Tax Act, 1932 (Mysore Act 9 of 1932) (hereinafter referred to as the 1932 Act) providing for the imposition of taxes on certain forms of betting in that State. Even after the merger of that Princely State in the Indian Union. the promulgation of the Indian Constitution, the formation of the new State of Mysore, now called as Karnataka, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the 1932 Act has continued on the statute book of the new State with its operation in the ar...
Tag this Judgment!Sowcar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3263
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. The order dated 29-12-1977 made under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 declining to exempt the land in question from the provisions of the Act is challenged in this Writ Petition.2. The contention of Sri. R.U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that having regard to the scheme and the object with which the Section is introduced, the State Government was bound to assign reasons for negativing the claim after hearing the petitioners. In support of bis contention, reliance is placed on a decision in Nandakishore v. State of M.P, : AIR1982MP33 . The Division Bench, after referring to the scheme and the object sought to be achieved by this Section states thus :-'Where under the provisions of an Act an authority is empowered to grant exemption and a person has a right to claim it on fulfilment of statutory conditions, the authority is bound to hear him and pass a speaking order giving reasons in support of its findi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »