Karnataka Court October 1990 Judgments
Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: [1992]86STC83(Kar)
ORDERM. P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this batch of sales tax revision petitions relating to 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 common question of law has been raised for consideration of this Court. That question is, whether sales of buses and the sale of an autorickshaw which was stated to be unserviceable by the assessee which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on the business of operating buses in South Canara (Dakshina Kannada) District is liable to tax as a seller of a motor vehicle which had not been purchased locally and as such was assessable to tax under section 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The undisputed facts are that the assessee-company operates its road transport service carrying passengers with its fleet of over 40 buses. The company also runs a garage to carry out repairs and maintenance work of its own fleet of buses as well as buses of other persons similarly operating their buses...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamappa Chetrappa Koppal Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR602; 1991(1)KarLJ316
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners against the order passed in M.C. No. 23 of 1989 dated 18-6-1990 by the Civil Judge, Gadag, praying therein to set aside the impugned order and to grant a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved under Sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short).2. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioners were married according to Hindu rites on 18-12-1988 at Hole Alur in Ron taluk. After the marriage, they lived together for a period of one week in the first petitioner's house. But the second petitioner did not allow the 1st petitioner her husband to have any matrimonial connection with her. They started living separately from, each other after about three weeks of their marriage. They have not been able to live together and the marriage between them was completely broken and there was no possibility of reconciliation and, therefore, they filed a petition un...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC292; 1991LC62(Karnataka); 1991(55)ELT178(Kar); 1990(3)KarLJ461
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner, when the petition was presented was a going concern registered under the Companies Act, 1956 manufacturing textiles, including yarn, in what is commonly termed as a composite textile mill. Since then the Company has gone into liquidation and is now represented by the Official Liquidator attached to this Court. Its grievance relates to three years commencing from 15-7-1977 to 28-7-1979 and 15-11-1979, to 20-8-1980 to March, 1981. During the periods in question, the assesses-petitioner textile mill was assessed to excise duty at concessional rate in terms of Notifications No. 226/77 dated 15-7-1977 and 301/79 dated 30-11-1979 issued by the Central Government. Such concessional duty levied was sought to be reopened by show cause notices issued between 9-11-1977 and before 24-2-1981 inter alia on the ground that the drill manufactured which was allowed concessional rate of duty was not drill specified in the notifications. As a result of such ...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Phadke and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ196; [1991]81STC443(Kar)
ORDERM. Rama Jois, J.1. This revision petition is presented under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, against the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing its appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, dismissing its appeal against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Belgaum. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. The assessment year is 1979-80. During the assessment year the assessee had purchased rubber meant to be used for retreading of tyres. The purchase price of the rubber purchased during the year by the assessee was Rs. 22,200. The assessing authority made an assessment under section 12(3) of the Act. The assessing authority found that the rubber purchased by the assessee was utilised for the retreading of the tyres of its customers. Rubber materials were purchased both from outside the State and within the State. On verifica...
Tag this Judgment!Mak Wood Industries Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)KarLJ551; [1991]83STC352(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The short question which falls for determination in this sales tax revision petition under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is whether the first appellate authority was correct in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, the appeal being presented 206 days beyond the prescribed time without considering the explanation offered in regard to the delay that had occurred in presenting the appeal 2. Sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act prescribes period of 30 days to prefer an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer or the Commercial Tax Officer as the case may be. The time in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 of the Act will commence running against the assessee from the date on which the notice of assessment was served on the appellant or from the date on which he is served with a copy of the order against which he has to prefer an appeal. Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 20 empowers...
Tag this Judgment!H. Hirianna Shetty Vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2779; 1991(4)KarLJ503
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal by the 7th defendant is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1978, passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S.No. 30/1971. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 12 are defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 respectively. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 12 expired. Therefore, his legal representatives were brought oh record as defendants 13 to 18. They are respondents 13 to 18 in the appeal. In this Judgment, the present appellant would be referred to as the 7th defendant.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant (the 7th defendant) died. His legal representatives are brought on record. In this Judgment, the appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased 7th defendant, they would be referred as 7th defendant, respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 11 and 13 to 18 as defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 and 13 to 18 respectively.2.1. The trial Court has passed a decree in the following term...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Ramakrishne Godwa Vs. Senior Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3770
Hakeem, J.1. These Writ Petitions are before us on a Reference made by a Division Bench involving a short question of construction of the expression 'total number of members' of the Mandal Panchayat found in Section 47 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. All the relevant provisions of the Act and the facts of the case have been stated in extenso in the Judgments of my learned Brothers. Hence, it is unnecessary to repeat the same except to refer to the same in brief wherever necessary.3. I had the privilege of perusing the separate Judgments written by my learned Brothers taking conflicting views on the second question referred to the Full Bench for consideration i.e., regarding the effective strength of the Mandal Panchayat to be considered for the purpose of Section 47 of the Act. On a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act two views appear to be equally possib...
Tag this Judgment!Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collr. of C. Ex., Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC237; 1996(87)ELT40(Kar)
ORDER1. Though two writ petitions are filed for issue of a writ of mandamus to refund a total sum of Rs. 52,92,933.25 as per refund claims made by the Petitioner on 25-3-1987 (Annexure E) and 23-3-1987 (Annexure F), we are not concerned with the claim made as per Annexure E. The Writ Petition No. 8703/87 which relates to the claim made as per Annexure F for a sum of Rs. 12,67,273.37 is considered on merits. This amount represents the sum which become due to the Petitioner as a result to the Appellate Collector's order dated 30-1-1987 (Annexure D). 2. The Petitioner made a claim for refund before the Department, as per Annexure H, By an endorsement dated 21-4-1987, the Assistant Collector said that the refund application will be considered only after the appeal filed by the Department was disposed of by the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal by its order dated 14-1-1988. 3. After the dismissal of the Department's appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Shyamaraju (Trustees)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Kar)76; [1991]189ITR392(KAR); [1991]189ITR392(Karn); 1991(1)KarLJ233
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. We propose to dispose of these petitions by the following common order inasmuch as the questions of law involved are the same. 2. The facts of the cases fall within a narrow compass depending on the trust deeds which are all more or less family trusts. The trusts represented by the trustees have been assessed by the concerned Income-tax Officer under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the corresponding provisions under the 1922 Act, viz., section 41 of the latter mentioned Act. It is held that as a representative assesses, the trustee or trustees, as the case may be, is/are liable to pay tax to the extent the beneficiary or beneficiaries would be liable and form whom such tax is/are recoverable. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, has considered that such assessment orders are prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and has, therefore, set aside the orders of assessment and directed the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Heera D. Vatcha Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR156(KAR); [1991]188ITR156(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ478
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs J. 1. This is an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, made by the assessee, Mrs. Heera D. Vatcha, asking this court to call for a reference from the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, to answer the following question. 'Whether it is mandatory for the Wealth-tax Officer to adopt the procedure prescribed under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Government by section 46 of the Wealth-tax Act?' 2. Rule-1D is as follows : 'The market value of an unquoted equity share of any company, other than an investment company or a managing agency company, shall be determined as follows :- The value of all the liabilities as shown in the balance-sheet of such company shall be deducted from the value of all its assets shown in that balance-sheet. The net amount so arrived at shall be divided by the total amount of its paid-up equity share capital as shown in the balance-sheet. The result...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »