Karnataka Court December 1993 Judgments
V. Verghese and Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR11; [1994]210ITR511(KAR); [1994]210ITR511(Karn)
1. By an order dated June 25, 1993, a Division Bench of this court consisting of K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT and R. V. VASANTHAKUMAR JJ., has referred the following questions for the decision of the Full Bench : '1. When rule 9A(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was substituted by a new sub-rule, whether such substitution amounts to repeal and whether the General Clauses Act will apply 2. Whether the assessing authority has jurisdiction to complete the assessment by invoking the old sub-rule (1) of rule 9A which stood substituted by a new sub-rule at the time of making the assessment ?' Background facts : 2. In order to appreciate the scope of the aforesaid questions, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts leading to these proceedings. The writ petitioner in W. P. No. 18136 of 1989 is an individual, while the writ petitioner in W P. No. 18137 of 1989 is a partnership firm. Both of them carry on the business of producing feature films in Kannada. The petitioner firm in the second petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Modern Mills Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC135; 1994LC426(Karnataka); 1994(72)ELT246(Kar)
1. The Union of India and officers of Central Excise Department, functioning under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 have brought in challenge in the present appeal an order dated 26-10- 1990 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18534 of 1989 moved by respondents herein before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the petition and directed the appellants to permit to writ petitioners to utilise the accumulated credit claimed in Annexure-C to the petition subject to verification as to the correctness of the amount. The learned Judge has further observed that the writ petitioners will be entitled to accumulated credit under the earlier Notification No. 27/87 and in addition, they will be entitled to further benefit available under the subsequent Notification No. 45/89 as available to manufacturers of vegetable products under the said notification. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-authorities, it is n...
Tag this Judgment!Raletronics Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC116; 1994(71)ELT26(Kar)
ORDER1. The first petitioner in W.P. 20461/89 is a Company engaged in the manufacture of television (T.V.) sets at Bangalore. For the sake of convenience it will be referred as the 'Manufacturing Company'. The petitioner in the other W.P. 20452/89 is referred for the sake of convenience as Bush India which is not carrying on any manufacturing activity in Karnataka but elsewhere. 2. The Manufacturing Company sells the T.V. sets to several dealers including Bush India. The T.V. sets are sold ultimately in the trade name of the particular manufacturers or sellers as in the case of Bush India. The Manufacturing Company filed its price list under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short) read with Rule 173C of the Rules in respect of the articles manufactured by it. Price lists were approved. The price list mentioned the price of the T.V. sets and the discount allowable to the wholesale dealer and only thereafter wholesale price was arrived at. Subsequently, ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Herbals Ltd. Vs. Director of Income-tax (investigation) and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR55(KAR); [1994]207ITR55(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner-company challenges the search and seizure proceedings made under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The petitioner also challenges the prohibitory order as extended from time to time. It also seeks a mandamus to the respondents to furnish a copy of the order made under section 132(1) including the various search warrants. The company was formed in the year 1984, originally as a private limited company ; subsequently, it was converted into a public limited company with effect from November 21, 1988. It obtained a 100 per cent. export licence. Its object is to manufacture anti-cancer and anti-hypertension drugs to be extracted from herbal plants. In the first instance, the petitioner developed the lab technology and later a German company developed the production technology on the basis of a turnkey agreement with the petitioner. It is unnecessary to refer to the other details here. According to the petitioner, the...
Tag this Judgment!Tungabhadra Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR283
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner-company owns a factory manufacturing sugar at Shimoga and is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of assessment and demand dated September 21, 1992 (annexure B) passed by the third respondent (assessing authority) in regard to the assessment period April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, confirmed by the second respondent (appellate authority) by order dated January 23, 1993 (annexure A). The grievance of the petitioner is in regard to levy and collection of purchase tax under the Act on the amount paid by the petitioner in regard to the sugarcane supplied to the petitioner by the cane growers, over and above the minimum sugarcane price fixed by the Government of India under clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (in short 'the Control Order' or 'the said order'). 2. Sugarcane is the principal raw material in the manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Pattabhiraman Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR834; 1994(2)KarLJ213
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the Deputy General Manager of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Church Street, Bangalore-1 has filed this Writ Petition challenging his transfer by the Bank by its order dated 20.9.1993 from Bangalore to Hyderabad as Deputy General Manager (Special) attached to Inspection and Management Audit Department, Hyderabad.2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this Writ Petition are as follows:-In the month of November 1992 the petitioner was transferred to Bangalore and he reported for duty in Bangalore on 31.12.1992. His wife, Smt. Sathyavathi is also working in the same bank as the Chief Manager of Bangalore. Earlier both the petitioner and his wife were working in Bombay. From there the petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad and his wife Smt. Sathyavathi to Bangalore. Believing that there will be no further transfer of the petitioner till the normal period of 2 to 3 years of service, he reported for duty in Bangalore. One Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Siddaramaiah Vs. Anwari Basavaraj Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR552; 1994(2)KarLJ268
ORDERJagannatha Hegde, J1. This Petition is presented challenging the legality and validity of the election held at the General Elections to Lok Sabha 1991 (Tenth Lok Sabha) from No. 4 Koppal Parliamentary Constituency, Koppal. The polling was held on 15.6.1991. Counting of the votes was taken up on 16.6.1991 and the declaration of the result was made on 17.6.1991, declaring Respondent No. 1 as the successful candidate from the said constituency.2. Material allegations necessary for the purpose of deciding this Petition may be stated as follows:The petitioner contested the election as a candidate from Janatha Dal. Rule 1 to Rule 13 also contested the said election. Rule 1 was nominated by the Indian National Congress while Rule 2 was nominated by the Bharathiya Janatha Party. Rule 5 contested as a candidate set up by the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha. The other candidates contested the election as independent candidates. Rule 14 was the Returning Officer. The petitioner had appointed o...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Pai and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR726
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court by an order made on 12.11.1992 referred the following Question for the Opinion of the Full Bench:-'Whether Section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is applicable to turnover tax after the amendment of Section 6B of the Act by Karnataka Act No. 13/82, and whether a notification exempting turnover tax is traceable to Section 8A of the Act?'Thus, the above Question has come up for Consideration before this Full Bench.2. It appears, according to the view taken by the Division Bench, there has been a conflict between the two Decisions rendered by this Court, reported in (1) 55 STC 93 B.P. Automobiles v. State and (2) 58 STC 178 Shantilal v. State.3. We have heard the learned Counsel on both the sides.4. In order to appreciate the legal contentions raised before us, it is better to extract Section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1982. The relevant por...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR439; 1994(1)KarLJ421
ORDERM.Ramakrishna, J1. These Writ Petitions have been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Shivashankar Bhat and Ramakrishna, JJ., by invoking the power under Section 10(v) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by their Order dated 30.6.1992, for consideration. Hence, they have been taken up for consideration by this Full Bench.2. The legal contention urged in support of the Writ Petitions is that the Decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in RAJAMALLAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA : ILR1985KAR1802 , requires to be reconsidered in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in (1) DWARKADAS MARFATIA AND SONS v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY, : [1989]2SCR751 , (2) MAHABIR AUTO STORES AND ORS : [1990]1SCR818 . v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND ORS., (3) KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS : AIR1991SC537 . and observations made by another Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. K.M.SHANKARAN R....
Tag this Judgment!Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant227; ILR1994KAR159; 1994(1)KarLJ385
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. A Division Benchof this Court consisting of, the Acting Chief Justice and N. D. V. Bhat, J. while considering W. A. 89/1991 arising out of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') entertained a doubt whether the two Division Bench Decisions of this Court in Hanumaiah v. State of Karnataka : ILR1987KAR550 and Chikkanarasaiah v. Tirupathaiah : ILR1989KAR1520 lay down the law correctly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court inState of Karnataka v. G.Seenappa : AIR1992SC1531 and G. M. Harkuni v. Tahsildar : [1992]3SCR786 . The Division Bench also felt that it was necessary to determine whether there was any conflict between the decisions in the cases of Hanumaiah and Chikkanarasaiah on the one hand and the two decisions of another Division Bench of this Court in Adivappa Shivappa Mattur v. Tahsildar : ILR1990KAR879 and G. M. Harkuni v. Tahsildar : ILR1990KAR3020 . As the said four decisions of this Court were being...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »