Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]111STC102(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the order dated June 30, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, whereunder the appellants had challenged the constitutional validity of section 6B(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act') and the Notification No. FD. 49 CSL 96(11) dated May 30, 1996 (annexure A to the writ petitions) issued under section 8A of the said Act. The appellants are wholesale distributors, stockists and/or manufacturers of drugs and medicines. 2. For appreciating the grounds taken by Mr. B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the scheme of taxation envisaged under the Act needs to be set out in brief. 3. Section 5 of the Act provides for levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods. Sub-section (1) thereof provides a general rate of tax at the point of first sale which, with effect from April 1, 1996, is 12 per cent. Sub-section (3) of the said section carves out an exce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ253
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of the premises bearing No. 1873/13 and 14 situated at Sayyaji Rao Road, Mandi Mo-halla, Mysore. He has called in question the correctness of the order dated 27th July, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dated 23rd November, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B passed by the second respondent treating the premises belonging to the petitioner as vacant and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for release of the said premises in her favour and allotting the same to the 3rd respondent.2. The facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as under:On the report dated 7th August, 1990 submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the 2nd respondent by his notification dated 20th August, 1990 notified the premises in question as vacant and called for applications for allotment of the said premises. In the notification issued, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR159; 1998(1)KarLJ282
ORDER1. These three revisions arise from the orders of the Court below dated 8-12-1992 in Miscellaneous Case Nos. 435 and 433 of 1988, and order dated 2-2-1993 in Execution Case No. 51 of 1991, respectively, passed dismissing the common petitioner's applications filed under Order 9, Rules 3 and 4 of Civil Procedure Code in said Miscellaneous Case Nos. 435 and 433 of 1988, and application under Order 21, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code in Execution Case No. 51 of 1991, as time barred.2. Certain undisputed facts are that petitioner (hereinafter called the 'company') had filed the suit in S.C. No. 3342 of 1981 against respondents in Civil Revision Petition No. 817 of 1993 and S.C. 3341 of 1981 against respondents in Civil Revision Petition No. 1074 of 1993 for recovery of certain debts due to the company from them. On 9-12-1992 both the said suits were dismissed for default by the Trial Court.3. Thereafter, the respective applications under Order 9, Rules 4 and 5 read with Section 151, Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]91CompCas13(Kar)
Mohamed Anwar, J.1. These three revisions arise from the orders of the court below dated December 8, 1992, in Misc. Cases Nos. 435 of 1988, and 433 of 1988, and order dated February 2, 1993, in Ex. Case No. 51 of 1991, respectively, passed dismissing the common petitioner's applications filed under Order 9, rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in the said Misc. Cases Nos. 435 and 433 of 1988, and application under Order 21, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in Ex. Case No. 51 of 1991 as time barred. 2. Certain undisputed facts are that petitioner (hereinafter called 'the company') had filed the suit in S.C. No. 3342 of 1981 against respondents in C.R.P. No. 817 of 1993 and S.C. No. 3341 of 1981 against respondents in C.R.P. No. 10074 of 1993, for recovery of certain debts due to the company from them. On December 9, 1982, both the said suits were dismissed for default by the trial court. Thereafter, the respective applications under Order 9, rules 4 and 5 read with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]111STC385(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The appellant is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of steel tubes out of the raw materials like steel skull, stripes and coils, etc. During the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, it had purchased the said raw materials within the State of Karnataka from the registered dealers and were subjected to tax at the first point under section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the State Act', for short). Thus, the raw materials consumed by the appellant in the manufacture of steel tubes were tax-paid goods. 2. During the assessment years in question, the appellant had sold the steel tubes manufactured by it, both within the State as also in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. While assessing the inter-State sales of steel tubes, the assessing officer rejected the dealer's contention that the benefit of 'set-off' envisaged by Explanation II under the Fourth Schedule to the Act was also available to the appellant in the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC575(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These three appeals have been filed under section 24(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act') against the common order dated June 18, 1996, pertaining to three periods of assessment passed under section 22A of the Act by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum Zone, by which he has set aside the appellate order and has restored the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority. 2. The appellant is a partnership-firm. It is engaged in the business of executing civil works like that of constructing bridges etc. It is registered as a dealer under the Act. The three periods involved herein are the years ending on June 30, 1986, June 30, 1987 and March 31, 1988. 3. The assessing officer concluded the assessment for the aforesaid periods under section 17(6) of the Act extending the benefit of composition tax. But, while doing so, he disallowed the claim of the appellant for deduction of labour charges out of the total considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ177
Acts/Rules/Orders:Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43-A and 226(2)Case Referred:K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income tax Investigation Commission and Others, AIR 1954 SC 207JUDGEMENTR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the memorandum to witness oral lease dated 27-8-1996, Annexure-G, executed between respondent 2 and respondent 4, the appellant herein filed writ petition praying for:'(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction prohibiting the 2nd respondent from handing over any machinery to any other party including the 4th respondent and further prohibit the respondents 2 and 4 from lifting the machinery from the Mangalore Yard of the Mazagon Dock Limited in the interest of justice and equity;(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to award the work to the Mangalore Yard of the Mazagon Dock Limited and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute the work that has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ574
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Under the industrial jurisprudence, bonus connotes claim of the workmen due to them beyond strict wages. Any extra consideration given for what is received, or something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by, or strictly due to the recipient is a bonus. It is also termed as wage incentives given to the labourer by the establishment for achieving higher productivity. The object of grant of bonus on the one hand is to increase earnings of the workers and on the other to improve the efficiency in the output in an industrial establishment. The Payment of Bonus Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') was enacted to provide for payment of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments on the basis of profits or on the basis of production or productivity and for matters connected therewith. In the statement of objects and reasons to Act No. 21 of 1965, it was stated: 'A Tripartite Commission was set up by the Government of India by their Resolution No. WB-20(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ273
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present writ petitions have been preferred by the Rice Millers having licence under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958. They have questioned the authority of the respondent-Market Committee constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (in short 'the Marketing Act') to compel the petitioners to collect market fee on levy sales of rice effected under the provisions of the Karnataka Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984 (in short 'the Levy order) made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. In an earlier judgment, in the case of Nadiga Industries and Rice Mill v State of Karnataka, a Bench of this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Chhitter Mal Narain Das v Commissioner of Sales Tax, had held to the following effect:'As far as the first prayer made in the writ petitions is concerned, the same shall be governed by the Division Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1039; 1998(6)KarLJ159
ORDER1. This revision is filed by the tenant to challenge the order dated 30-8-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Hassan district, Hassan in Appeal No. LRAA RA 24/88. In passing the said order, the Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal of the landlord had set aside the order dated 11-9-1987 passed by the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, Holenarasipura in granting occupancy right in respect of 2 items of the land while rejecting in respect of yet another item of the land.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri B. Manohar and the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent 1-Smt. S.N. Sudha appearing along with Sri G.S. Visweswara. I have also perused the case records.3. The facts in brief of the case relevant for our purpose are as hereunder:That the petitioner had filed Form 7 before the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, claiming occupancy right as against the respondent 1 herein in respect of 3 items of the land. They are 1 acre 23 guntas in Sy....
Tag this Judgment!