Karnataka Court January 1985 Judgments
Rajamma Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, Circle-i, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: [1985]152ITR657(KAR); [1985]152ITR657(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. This case was posted before me today for orders. But, as agreed to by both sides, this is treated as having been listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. 2. Under s. 154 of the I.T. Act 1961 ('Act'), the petitioner made an application before the Second ITO, Circle-I, Bangalore ('ITO'), for rectification of an earlier assessment order made against her under the Act as early as on June 29, 1983. But so far, the ITO has not disposed of the said application. an application made for rectification is required to be decided and disposed of with all such speed and dispatch that is possible in the circumstances of the case. An application for relief cannot be kept in cold storage as had happened in the present case. In this view, I issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the ITO-respondent to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner under s. 154 of the Act with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and, in an...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan and Co. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR661; [1985]58STC177(Kar)
ORDERRajashekhara Murthy, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are licensed vendors of toddy have challenged the levy and collection of sales tax on the turnover of sale of toddy exigible to tax under entry 82 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Several grounds are urged by Sri M. R. Nayak appearing for the petitioners and they are (i) that the sale of toddy in their taverns is not a 'sale' within its meaning as defined under section 2(t) of the Act and that therefore the petitioners are not 'dealers' whose turnover in the sale of toddy could attract the levy of tax under the Act; (ii) that toddy is an 'agricultural produce' and the petitioners are 'agriculturists' whose turnover in sale of toddy is exempt under section 2(k) of the Act and hence (iii) that the State Legislature is not competent to impose tax on the turnover of sale of toddy under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Tajunnissa Begum Vs. Mydar Huligemma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3178; 1985(1)KarLJ180
ORDERK.A. Swamai, J.1. It is not necessary to entertain this Writ Petition, as the disposal of this Petition at this stage itself with certain observations serves the purpose.2. Sri K.S Savanur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that a transfer petition (Misc. Petition No. 23 of 1983, filed on 23-6-83) filed before the Learned District Judge, Raichur, under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, for transfer of O.S. No. 91 of 1980 from the Court of the Civil Judge, Raichur to the Court of the Civil Judge, Koppal, is still pending and due to interim order passed therein, the petitioners are put to great loss and inconvenience.3.1) It is sufficient to observe that a transfer petition, whether it be on the ground of convenience or on other grounds, is required to be disposed of immediately after the respondent or respondents to the petition are served. Long pendency of such a petition is bound to cause great inconvenience to the parties. As long as transfer-petition is pending,...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadevaiah Vs. Enquiry Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2244
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner who is an employee of the K.S.R.T.C. Employees Credit Cooperative Society has presented this Petition praying for quashing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing his Revision Petition against the order of the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Society declining to permit the Petitioner to engage an advocate to defend his case before the said Enquiry Officer.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The Petitioner is a clerk in the employment of the 2nd respondent society. Disciplinary proceedings has been instituted against him on the allegation that he hadmisappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,41,334.00. Before the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Society, the Petitioner made a request to permit him to engage an advocate to defend him in the enquiry on the ground that the charges levelled against him was serious and complicated questions of law and facts arise for consideration. This application was rejected by the Enquiry Officer ho...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaram P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3412; [1985]152ITR664(KAR); [1985]152ITR664(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These are references under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 104 are attracted for the assessment year 1965-66 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 104 are attracted for the assessment year 1966-67 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. It is a company to which the provisions of s. 104 of the Act are applicable. The assessment years involved are 1965-66 and 1966-67, the relevant previous years being the years ending on April 18, 1965 and April 18, 1966, respectively. It appears, the assessee had earned large income on the sale of import entitlements which had not been accounted for in the books o...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Traders and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Chintamani Circ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1179; [1985]58STC343(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. What is the true scope and ambit of section 6-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the K. S. T. Act') and whether that provision violates article 286 of the Constitution and section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956) ('the C.S.T. Act') are the twin questions that arise for determination in these cases. 2. In order to appreciate those questions and certain other cognate questions raised in the writ petitions, it is necessary to notice the facts in Writ Petition No. 5031 of 1975 in some detail and the facts in the other cases, in general. 3. M/s. Srinivasa Traders of Gulur, Kolar District, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5031 of 1975, a firm of partners, is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of groundnuts and oil-seeds. The petitioner is a 'registered dealer' under both the State and the Central Acts on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Chintamani Circle, Chintamani ('C.T.O.'). Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Malagarasamma and anr. Vs. Gurusiddamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant207; ILR1985KAR1628; 1985(1)KarLJ206
ORDER1. This is a revision against the order dated 4-2-81 passed by the Munsiff, Malavalli, in Ex. Case No. 104/79, holding that the execution petition was maintainable.2. The decree-holder obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor in Mandya Munsiff Court. Thereafter, a new Munsiff Court was established at Malavalli. So he filed an application in the Court of the Munsiff, Mandya for transferring the decree to Malavalli Court. The Munsiff Court, Mandya passed an order on 27-11-79, ordering the transfer of decree to the Munsiff Court, Malavalli. The execution petition was actually filed on 14-12-79 in the Munsiff Court at Malavalli. The decree sought to be executed was passed on 29th November, 1967. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the 12 years mentioned in Article 136 should start from the date on which the decree was passed i.e. 29-11-67 and so as on 14-12-79, the date on which the execution petition was filed, the petition was barred by limitation. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Karnataka Vs. Govinda Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR933
ORDERMalimath, C. J.1. This appeal is by the State Government challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 4-5-1978 in Writ Petition No. 6550/77.2. The Respondent made an application to the State Government under Section 5 of the Karnataka State Servant (Determination of Age)Act,I974(hereinafter referred to as the Act,) for alteration of his date of birth from 20-9-1922 to 15-2-1923. For the purpose of holding an inquiry, the State Government appointed, under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, the second appellant as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and after giving an opportunity of showing cause in the matter to the Respondent, submitted his report agreeing with the request of the Respondent for alteration of his date of birth- The State Government, however, disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and passed an order on 30-6-1977 rejecting the Respondent's application. The Respondent challenged the said order of the State Government i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›