Karnataka Court January 1996 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.
Preston Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, District Circle-iii, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2417; 1996(41)KarLJ494
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order [Reported as Manish Plastics v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka [1995] 99 STC 293 (Kar).] made by the learned single Judge on the question of interpretation of section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and whether the exemption granted under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in respect of footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair, is available to transactions covered by the said provision. The petitioner is a dealer in footwear and has effected inter-State sales of the same, and contends that under entry No. 46 in the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair is exempted from tax and that exemption is general in character and not subject to any conditions or with reference to any circumstance. The State contends that the term 'exemption from tax generally' in section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, does not cover the goods which are exempted only on spe...
Excise Commissioner Vs. Satishchandra Hegde Family Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR421; 1996(3)KarLJ268
Bharuka, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Excise Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 25.11.1992 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal whereby it has been directed that the stock of arrack and other articles seized under the provisions of Section 52 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (the Act, for short) be returned to the first respondent.2. Admittedly the first respondent was the successful bidder in the excise auction held in the excise year 1987-88 in Taluks of Udupi, Kundapur and Belthangadi of Dakshina Kannada District. On 9.9.1987 the Sub-Inspector of Police for Udupi Town Police Station along with some other officers visited the godown of the contesting respondent (the Licensee, for short) and seized arrack found stored in cans. Subsequently a police case was instituted against him under ' Section 34 of the Act in Crime No. 134 of 1987 of Udupi Town Police Station. Seizure was also reported to the Excise Officers as provided under Section 43A of the ...
Kulkarni Geeta M. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2672; 1996(5)KarLJ491
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding the Circulars dated 22-7-1978 - Annexure-D and 5-8-1978 - Annexure- E, to be illegal, null and void as well as to be without any authority of law.The Petitioner has further sought the relief for issue of writ of mandamus declaring the Petitioner to be belonging to the Schedule Caste being Beda Jangama, a sub-caste in Veerashaiva religion and for a direction to respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated as per Annexure-A to this Writ Petition as well as for issue of direction to respondents to forbear from holding a Departmental criminal proceedings, on the basis of Annexures D & E.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner claims to be belonging to Beda Jangama Caste which is a sub-caste of Veerashaivas. Further the case of the petit...
Chandrakanth Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR365; 1996(6)KarLJ256
Pendse, C.J. 1. This batch of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals raise identical questions and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by Common Judgment. It would be convenient to set out the facts which gave rise to filing of Writ Appeal No. 191/92, to appreciate the issue involved for determination.2. The respondent Kaleemulla (in W.A.No. 191/92) is the owner of goods vehicle bearing Registration No. CAS 3048. Respondent had secured a permit to use the vehicle as a public carrier and the permit was valid upto March 20, 1991, The permit entitled the respondent to ply the vehicle in the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The permit did not entitle the respondent to carry any passenger in the goods vehicle. On September 23, 1989 the vehicle was searched by the authorities and it was noticed that the respondent was carrying 15 passengers in the vehicle after collecting diverse amounts enabling to travel from one point to another. The driver of the vehicle was prosecute...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›