Karnataka Court December 1995 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.
Mysore thermo Electric (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2605; [1996]221ITR504(KAR); [1996]221ITR504(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ242
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act wherein the following two points have been referred to this Court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the sum of Rs. 9,11,618 Central Excise duty refund, can be brought to tax under s. 41(1) of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 41(1) can be invoked to tax the refunds received during the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1983-84 even when the part of excise duty was not claimed as expenditure in the P&L; a/c of earlier years and the applicant had kept a separate account in respect of collection and payment of excise duty ?' The case has given rise to a furious debate on points of law between the two learned advocates who represent the assessee and the Revenue, the principal reason being that it concerns the interpretation of s....
Mahabir Enterprises and Another Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1632
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. In view of the identical nature of facts, grounds urged and the issues involved in these writ petitions, all these petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by a common order. Reliefs sought in these petitions is to : (a) quash circular instruction dated August 10, 1989 issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore (b) quash pre-assessment notices for the respective assessment years (c) quash the orders of assessments framed in the respective assessment years by the concerned assessing authorities. 2. Facts in nutshell are : Petitioners are dealers in purchase and sale of bamboo sticks and other raw materials required for manufacture of agarbathis. Petitioners had claimed exemption in respect of sale of 'bamboo sticks' for the assessment years in question on the basis of notification issued by the State Government exercising its powers under section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the State Act'). The said claim has been n...
Kavitha Sales Corporation Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2203
M.F Saldanha, J. 1. These three appeals relate to certain orders passed under Section 15 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act. The appellants had contended that they were entitled to exemption and that they were not leviable to entry tax which position was substantially upheld by the Assessment Officer. The Revisional Authority issued a notice under Section 15 to the appellants stating that in his opinion the Assessing Officer had mechanically accepted the contentions raised by the appellants, that this was incorrect, that in his opinion they were liable to be taxed in respect of those transactions where the goods had physically entered the local area and that therefore he asked the appellants to show cause as to why the original orders should not be revised. The appellants sent a reply in which they pointed out that they have produced records and documentary proof in support of their contention, that the assessing authority had scrutinised each of these and come to the conclusio...
Mascot Agro-chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Collector Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC53; ILR1996KAR2086; 1996(7)KarLJ209
P. Krishnamoorthy, J.1. This appeal is by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No. 15881/1988. The appellant imported a chemical by name 'Butachlor Technical 90% for use in the manufacture of Herbicides. At the time of importation of the chemical in April 1986, the goods were classified under Heading No. 3808=30 of customs Tariff Act 1975 and fixed the rate of duty as 70% basic and 40% auxiliary. The appellant paid the duty at that rate during the period from 16-4-1986 to 26-6-1986. In June 1987 the said goods were classified under Heading 29420.00 of customs Tariff Act 1975 and duty was levied at 60% basic and 40% auxiliary. The appellant had thus paid an excess 10% duty amounting to a total of Rs. 1,90,670-20. The appellant filed a claim for refund of excess on 24-7-87. The respondents Summer early rejected the claim on the ground that the claim is made beyond 6 months and that the claim is barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962. The above orders were challenged in the Writ Petition o...
Chickrangaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3577; 1996(7)KarLJ846
ORDERP. Krishna Moorthy, J.1. The Petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of his land. In the amended Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner and in actual possession of about 2 acres and 13 guntas of land in Sy.No. 7/1 situated at Shettihalli Village, Kasaba Hoblic, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. The second respondent- the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of this land and other lands on 30.12.1991. It was published in the Karnataka Gazette only on 20.2.1992 and the copy of the Gazette Notification is produced as Annexure 'A'. The Notification has also been published in the Kannada Daily Newspaper 'Prajayani' dated 28.6.1992. In pursuance to the above Notification, the petitioner filed his objections dated 20.6.1992 contending among other things that he is a poor agriculturist and there is no other place for him to const...
Bharat Electronics Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1395; 1996(5)KarLJ94
1. The validity of the finding on an issue entered by the Labour Court in, reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is questioned in these writ petitions. The facts of the case are that pending adjudication of a dispute before the Labour Court the services of the workers in question were terminated. As required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the management applied to the Tribunal for approval of the action taken. The Tribunal examined the question as to whether the approval be granted. In doing so, it examined the question whether there had been a proper enquiry and whether the charges against the workers had been proved prima facie. The Tribunal found that there was a proper domestic enquiry and that charges had been proved. It also held that the dismissal was not an act of victimisation. It, therefore, granted permission to the management to dismiss the workers. Subsequent thereto an industrial dispute was raised b...
Joint R.T.O. Alwaye Vs. Joshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC383
K.T. Thomas, Ag. C.J.1. The question to be determined in these two cases is the same and hence we thought it convenient to dispose of them by this common judgment.2. Petitioners in both cases are owners of the 'Light Motor Vehicle' each and they have applied for registration of their vehicles before the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In one case, the Registering Authority dismissed the application as per Ext. P4 order against which the applicant filed Original Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition and directed the Registering Authority to register the vehicle. That judgment is now being challenged by the Registering Authority in the appeal before us. The other case is the Original Petition filed by the other applicant on the ground that the Registering Authority has not passed order on his application and hence prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Registering Authority to...
State of Karnataka by Kunigal Police Vs. Diyanath Ali Khan, Son of Naw ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)404; 1996CriLJ1383; ILR1996KAR573; 1996(1)KarLJ412
ORDER1. This revision by the State under Sections 397 read with 401, Cr.P.C. is directed against on order of the learned Munsiff & JMFC, Kunigal, dated 15-4-1991 holding that there is no prima facie material against the accused to commit the case under Section 209, Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. A short but important question which arises for consideration is whether the Committal Court has jurisdiction to discharge the accused for the offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session. 3. Facts in brief are these : The Sub-Inspector of Police Kunigal Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused-respondent alleging offences under Section 307, I.P.C. and Section 27 and 30 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that on 16-6-1990 at about 5-30 p.m. the respondent-accused who was the Manager of the Stud Farm, Kunigal, fired at CW. 1 with a gun 'thereby does an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if...
Arya Bhavan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1262
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. A rather ticklish question of law has been raised by the appellants in these two appeals which requires in our considered view, a decision within the scope and context of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act as contra-distinguished from the view taken by the courts from time to time in relation to several other enactments. The controversy centres around the question as to whether the appellants, who basically run restaurants in the city of Bangalore, but who are famous for some of their specialised preparations mainly sweets and other edible items, can be regarded as a manufacturing unit within the meaning of entry No. 16-B of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we have extracted entry No. 16-B along with the explanations which read as follows : '16-B. All raw materials, component parts and inputs which are used in the manufacture of an intermediate or finished product, or in the processing, improvement ...
Neelakantappa Vishwanathappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR700
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The point involved in these appeals is one of consequence. In so far as the impugned order that has been challenged, which is a composite order covering the assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90 is concerned, it has been assailed by the appellants' learned advocate, principally on the ground that in his submission, there was no warrant for reopening the assessments that had been correctly concluded. Learned advocate submits that if the court were to peruse the assessment orders one by one, that it will be evident that the assessing officer did examine the records produced by the assessee and that he did also carefully and applied his mind. The submission that was canvassed by him is in relation to the quantity of the goods, which in these cases happen to be cigarettes and beedies, that were earmarked for consumption in the non-municipal areas. He further points out that if one were to look at the relevant figures for all the five years, that the application of mind on...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »