Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(Kar)354; [1998]230ITR566(KAR); [1998]230ITR566(Karn)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Assessment proceedings for asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 were completed by the Agrl. ITO, Chickmagalur by four different orders passed by him. Suo motu revisional proceedings against the said orders were then initiated by the Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes (A), Mysore culminating in orders that came under challenge in four different appeals filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The challenge inter alia was founded on the plea that the Dy. Commr. had no power or authority to revise the assessment orders, in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka Agrl. IT (Amendment) Act, 1983, which conferred such powers only in respect of assessments made upto the year ending 31st of March, 1982. The Tribunal found favour with this argument and by a common order dt. 7th June, 1985 set aside the orders passed by the Dy. Commr., holding the same to be without jurisdiction. While the position stood thus Karnataka Agrl. IT (Amendment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. These Writ Petitions call in question the Constitutional validity of Section 6B(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as amended by Karnataka Sales Tax Amendment Acts, 1987 and 1990. Also under challenge is the validity of Notification dated 30th of March and 30th of May 1996 whereby the Government have restricted the exemption granted to life saving drugs and withdrawn the reduced rate of turn over tax payable under Section 6B of the Act in regard to Medicinal and Pharmaceuticals preparations. The controversy arises in the following backdrop.2. By a Notification dated 30th March 1996, the Government reduced with effect from 1st day of April 1996, turn over tax payable under Section 6B of the Act to 1% in respect of certain class of goods including medicinal and pharmaceuticals preparations. By another Notification of even date, the Government exempted with effect from 1st of April 1996, tax payable under Section 5 of the Act, in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1722
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. 'Every error of law' let alone every conceivable error that a statutory authority may commit does not touch upon or affect its jurisdiction to pass the order. An error would be an error of jurisdiction only if the authority passing the order assumes competence by an erroneous application of a principle of law, or an erroneous assumption of the essential jurisdictional lads. Lack of jurisdiction to pass an order has therefore to be distinguished from an erroneous order. While the former can be assailed in appropriate writ proceedings, the latter ought to be questioned only in accordance with the machinery provided by the statute to do so, in which of the two categories does the error pointed out by the petitioner in the present case fall is the moot question. 2. The petitioner-company has established a medium scale industrial unit at Mysore for the manufacture of computers and computer peripherals. In terms of a notification issued under section 8A of the Kar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ765
ORDER1. Being aggrieved by the order dt. 18-7-96 directing to issue process to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 193, I.P.C. in P.C.R. No. 52/96 (C.C. No. 613/96) the petitioner filed this petition. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that there is a bar to take cognizance of the offence alleged against this petitioner under Section 195(1)(b)(i), Cr. P.C. To appreciate the argument it is necessary to succinctly put the facts of the case which are : That the petitioner is running a private nursing home in Tiptur. One Smt. Mahalakshmi approached this petitioner for treatment due to some ailment. It appears that the petitioner has diagnosed it to be cancer and adviced her to go to Kidwai Hospital at Bangalore. After several days the said Mahalakshmi died. It is alleged that she had 2 LIC policies herein the respondent was nominated. After her death when the respondent approached the LIC they declined to satisfy the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC583(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present revision petitions filed under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act') are directed against a common order dated June 20, 1996 passed by the Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 277-80/96 pertaining to the years 1986-87 to 1989-90. 2. The petitioner is a partnership-firm. For the periods in question, the petitioner was initially subjected to the ex parte assessment orders all dated May 20, 1994. It had filed an application for cancellation of the said orders as required under section 12D of the Act. But, at the same time writ petitions were also filed being Writ Petition No. 2829-93/94 for quashing of the said ex parte orders on jurisdictional grounds. When the writ petitions were taken up for preliminary hearing, the learned High Court Government Pleader produced the endorsement dated May 16, 1995 issued by the assessing officer from which it was enlightened that the ex parte assessment orders stood cancelled and the appellant was req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(98)ELT355(Kar)
ORDER1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari the petitioner-Company calls in question the validity of a notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, thereby the petitioner has been asked to show cause why Central Excise Duty in respect of goods manufactured and cleared by it be not recovered and a penalty imposed. Also under challenge is a notification dated 1st of March, 1988 levying excise duty on software at the rate of 10% ad valorem under Chapter Heading 85.24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of data Processing and providing software development services for domestic and export markets. These activities inter alia involve system development, system designing, programme development, master file creations, data preparation, data processing, data version and punching etc. The petitioner's case is that collection of data or information and transferring the same on the floppy cannot be said to be goods manufactured...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC580(Kar)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. This petition is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. The order under challenge was issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as far back as on November 2, 1983 transferring the assessment proceedings from the file of Commercial Tax Officer, Mandya and Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Assessments, Mysore, to that of Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Mysore. There is no explanation let alone an acceptable one for the petitioner's silence stretching over a period of nearly 14 years. Total lack of diligence makes it too late for the petitioner to find fault with the order; at this distant point of time.2. That apart the petition must fail even on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. In consequence of the impugned order of transfer, the assessment proceedings were completed by the C.T.O. (Intelligence), Mysore, on March 26, 1985. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner (App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]93CompCas697(Kar)
M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The petitioners herein are the accused before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 8206 of 1996, for the alleged offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The chief manager, chairman, managing director and directors of Bank of Baroda are the accused persons. They have preferred these petitions against the order passed by the learned magistrate directing to issue process to these petitioners. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint was without any bona fide reasons. If the complaint is taken as a whole, no offence is made out as against these petitioners. There is no dishonest intention on the part of these petitioners to constitute an offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These petitioners were not concerned with the transaction as on the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, he submitted that the learned magistrate has not applied his judicial mind in taking cognizance o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(98)ELT355(Kar)
ORDERShri Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari the petitioner company calls in question the validity of a Notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore; thereby the petitioner has been asked to show cause why Central Excise Duty in respect of goods manufactured and cleared by it be not recovered and a penalty imposed. Also under challenge is a Notification dated 1st of March, 1988 levy excise duty on Software at the rate of 10% ad valorem under Chapter heading 85.24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of Data Processing and providing Software, Development Services for domestic and export markets. These activities inter alia involve system Development, System designing, Programme Development, Master File creations, Data preparation, Data processing, Data version and punching etc. The petitioner's case is that collection of data or information and transferring the same on the floppy cannot be said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)473; 1998CriLJ2773; 1998(4)KarLJ82
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are the accused before the C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C. No. 8206 of 1996 for the alleged offence under Section 409, IPC. The Chief Manager, Chairman, Managing Director and Directors of Bank of Baroda are the accused persons. They have preferred thesepetitions against the Order passed by the learned Magistrate directing to issue process to these petitioners.2. Heard.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint was without any bona fide reasons. If the complaint is taken as a whole, no offence is made out as against these petitioners. There is no dishonest intention on the part of these petitioners to constitute an offence under Section 409, IPC. These petitioners were not concerned with the transaction as on the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, he submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind in taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be discharged.4. Per contra...
Tag this Judgment!