Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1999]112STC486(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated July 7, 1991 in S. T. A. Nos. 663 and 664 of 1991. The petitioner-industry is a partnership-firm engaged in the business of manufacture of steel and wooden furniture. During the assessment period 1987-88 and 1988-89, it had effected sales to Zilla Parishads in Karnataka and Nationalized Banks. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the Government Notification No. FD 71 CSL 84, dated March 3, 1986 the rate of tax applicable on such sales was only to the maximum extent of 4 per cent. The said notification reads as under : Sl. No. 200 NOTIFICATION No. FD 71 CSL 84, Bangalore, dated 3rd March, 1986 S.O. No. 479, Karnataka Gazette, dated 6th March, 1986. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), and in supersession of the Notification No. FD 142 CSL 79, dated 27th December, 1979, the Government of Karnataka, hereby...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997]107STC568(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order dated January 28, 1997 passed by the respondent-Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, under suo motu revisional power conferred under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act'). 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Act having its administrative office at Mission Road, Bangalore, and its factory is situated at Doddaballapur. It had purchased some electronic goods from M/s. OEMN Connectors Ltd., of Cochin, and the same was being carried from Cochin to Bangalore in a passenger bus. In the said process, after off-loading the same at Subhashnagar bus station at Bangalore, the employee of the firm proceeded to carry the said consignment to Doddaballapur in an autorickshaw. At that point of time it was intercepted by the mobile check-post authorities. On being asked the following documents were immediately produced for verification : (i) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1999)151CTR(Kar)576; [1998]233ITR224(KAR); [1998]233ITR224(Karn); [1999]105TAXMAN501(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The Tribunal, Bangalore, has, in all, referred six questions of law seeking the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), out of which three are at the instance of the Revenue and three at the instance of the assessee. The questions are the following : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's activity of producing food items from its boarding section was one involving production or manufacture of an article or thing within the meaning of s. 32A(2)(iii) (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance was allowable in respect of kitchen boilers (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance was not allowable under s. 32A in respect of air-conditioner used in the rooms of the lodging section (iv) Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2078
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. By these petitions the petitioners are seeking for quashing the Notifications at Annexure-A dated 9th August, 1995 and Annexure-B dated 20th October, 1995. They are issued by virtue of the powers under Sections 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short the Act).2. Annexure-A proposes to specify certain areas to be smaller urban area of Bidar and the same shall be a City Municipal area of Bidar and calls upon those interested to fife objections to the proposal, it also describes the said smaller urban area as areas coming within the limits specified in Schedule-B to the Notification.3. By Annexure-B the Government of Karnataka specified the smaller urban area stating that objections have been invited by Notification dated 16.8,1995, and objections received in time have been duly examined. It is stated in the Notification that having regard to :(i) the population of such area is not less than fifty thousand and not exceeding three lakhs; (ii...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2478; 1997(4)KarLJ590
ORDERS.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the order in Appeal No. 494/1989, filed by respondents 4 to 6 herein, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.2. the 1st petitioner was granted 5 guntas of land in Sy.No. 52/ 1 A and 1C and 52/1A 1D of Naricombu village and were placed in possession of the lands. The Deputy Commissioner prior to the grant is stated to have by an order withdrawn the Kumki privilege by notifying the respondents 3 to 6 herein. The respondents 3 to 6 challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore dated 8.5.1989 in B.Dis.LND (4) H.S.406/87-88. The contention before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal was that the Deputy Commissioner had not placed on record the Government Order No. RD.28.LGW 71 dated 29.1.1971 and 10.12.1971 and there was no such power vested in the Deputy Commissioner to withdraw the Kumki Privilege. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal accepting the contention, allowed the appeal and set aside the order withdraw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ290; ILR1997KAR2883
ORDER1. The only argument advanced in this petition is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay in presenting the complaint beyond the period of one month prescribed under S. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').2. The brief facts of the case are : respondent filed a complaint under S. 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the alleged offence under S. 138 of the Act. He has also filed an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in presenting the complaint beyond the prescribed period. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement and thereafter, directed to issue process. Subsequently, the Magistrate considered the I.A. without giving an opportunity to the accused persons and condoned the delay in presenting the complaint. This order is questioned by the accused in this petition.3. Heard the counsel on both sides.4. As stated earlier, the only question that ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ17
ORDER1. The short point involved in this case is : Whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct the police to investigate into the matter after taking cognizance and recording sworn statement of complainant and witnesses under S. 202(1), Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respdt. 3. The brief facts leading to this case are : the respondent made a report to the Station House Officer, High Grounds Police Station on 14-9-1995 against the petitioners which came to be registered in Crime No. 501/95 for the alleged offences under Ss. 420 and 465, IPC. The police sent the FIR to the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. After investigation, the police filed a 'B' Summary Report on 1-7-1996 as per Document No. 1. The allegations made in the complaint are that the petrs. have altered the cheque amount of 'Rs. 2,78,916/-' into 'Rs. 32,78,716/-' and attempted to encash the cheque with dishonest intention of making unlaw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR411
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners call in question the validity of assessment orders dated 20th October, 1989, passed by the Respondent/Commercial Tax Officer, Madikeri and the penalties imposed thereby for assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1981-82.2. The petitioner owns a Cardamom Estate also known as 'Kanakandy Estate' at Bhagamandala, of Madikeri Taluk. For the Assessment years mentioned earlier, he filed his returns under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, declaring his income at nil as the petitioner claimed to have transacted no business during the said years. Proposition Notices were all the same issued to him in respect of all the four years on the 8th of May 1989, proposing to levy tax on the turn overs mentioned in the same. The petitioner filed a common statement of objections to all the Notices inter alia contending that the proposed Assessments were barred by limitation, in the light of the provisions of Section 12(5) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1999)ILLJ39Kant
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The respondent in the writ petition is the writ appellant. The writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant Bank. In 1976, he was working at Shimoga. Certain allegation's were made that the respondent - employee while functioning as a Branch Manager of Kadugondanahalli Branch, entered into a criminal conspiracy with one M. V. Vasudevan, Proprietor of Fixwell Industries, Bangalore, for the purpose of cheating the Bank. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the respondent employee secured certain loan facilities, like, Over-draft and DBC facility and permitted one M. V. Vasudevan to present bogus bills for discounting and in collusion with and with full knowledge of the bogus nature of bills, discounted the said bills and transferred the amount to the account of the said Vasudevan to enable him to withdraw the same. These allegations came to lime-light to the appellant Bank when a criminal case in C.C. No. 7/1976, on the file of the Court of Special Judge at Bangalo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR215; 1998(1)KarLJ445; (1999)ILLJ393Kant
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The respondent in the writ petition is the writ appellant. The writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant-bank. In 1976, he was working at Shimoga. Certain allegations were made that the respondent-employee while functioning as a Branch Manager of Kadugondanahalli Branch, entered into a criminal conspiracy with one M. V. Vasudevan, proprietor of Fixwell Industries, Bangalore, for the purpose of cheating the bank. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the respondent-employee secured certain loan facilities, like, overdraft and DBC facility and permitted one M. V. Vasudevan to present bogus bills for discounting and in collusion with and with full knowledge of the bogus nature of bills, discounted the said bills and transferred the amount to the account of the said Vasudevan to enable him to withdraw the same. These allegations came to limelight to the appellant-bank when a criminal case in C.C. No. 7 of 1976, on the file of the Court of Special Judge at Bangalore...
Tag this Judgment!