Karnataka Court August 1999 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.
Biyar Rubber (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4061; [2000]241ITR877(KAR); [2000]241ITR877(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The validity of Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 220(2) are as under :'If the amount specified in any notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within the period specified under Sub-section (1), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at one and one-half per cent, for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing from the day immediately following the end of the period mentioned in Sub-section (1) and ending with the day on which the amount is paid.'2. It is submitted that the interest has already been levied while creating the demand under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act. In respect of the amount specified in the demand notice which is inclusive of the tax, interest and penalty liability of further interest to the extent that it is on the interest element is confiscatory in nature. Reliance is placed on the ju...
Smt. Boobu Madivalthi and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1506; 2000(3)KarLJ565
ORDER1. This is tenants' writ petition directed against the order dated 9th of June, 1986 passed by the second respondent-Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioners to register them as owners in respect of the house and the surrounding land measuring 20 cents bearing Revision Survey No. 260, situated at No. 104, Yelluru Village, Udupi Taluk and District, as provided under Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. I have heard Sri J.S, Shetty, learned Counsel for the third respondent, who strongly supported the order impugned.3. Having heard Sri Shetty and gone through the order, I am of the view that the order impugned is liable to be quashed on the short ground that it is not a speaking order and no reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal to reject the claim of the petitioners to register them as owners of the land in question.4. However, Sri Shetty pointed out that the husband of the first petitioner was permitted by the thir...
K.R. Venkatesh Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR462; 2000(5)KarLJ79
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. On the application filed by respondent 4, the Deputy Commissioner initiated the proceedings under Section 16 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act (for short 'the Act') by issuing a show-cause notice as per Annexure-A. The allegations made in the show-cause notice is that the petitioner is a defaulter having not paid the amount due to the Municipal Council and therefore, he is disqualified from holding the post of Councillor in the Municipal Council. Immediately after the receipt of the show-cause notice, the petitioner has filed a reply as per Annexure-B denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice. The Deputy Commissioner considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice has passed the order under Section 16(2) of the Act, declaring that the post held by the petitioner has become vacant. As against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 16(3) of the Act. The Divisiona...
M/s. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. M/s. Gogte ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3664; 1999(6)KarLJ328; (2000)ILLJ391Kant
1. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948, to quash the order passed by the Corporation and to declare that the applicant is not liable to pay any damages. After recording of evidence, the ESI Court passed the following order:'The application under Section 75 of the ESI Act is allowed. The order at Ex. A-10, dated 15-2-1991 passed by the Regional Director is quashed. It is hereby declared that the applicant is not liable to pay any damages. Parties shall bear their own costs'. Being aggrieved by that order the Corporation has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. However, the respondent remained absent even though notice was served on him. 3. The brief facts of the case are the respondent was declared a sick industry as per the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'). The said company was registered in 1980 and has got a factory at Belgaum which is engaged in the manufa...
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Channannja ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3552; 1999(6)KarLJ392; (2000)ILLJ153Kant
Y. Bhaskar Rao, C.J.1. Heard both sides. Delay condoned.2. This appeal is filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge modifying the award of the Labour Court.3. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a conductor in KSRTC and he was on probation. On 16-9-1984. when the bus which was conducted by the 1st respondent was checked by the authorities at about 9.50 a.m., it was found that he had failed to issue two tickets of 30 paise to 2 passengers, and again at 10.30 a.m. when the bus was checked, he had kept blank the way bill entry against Stage No. 3 in respect of 30 paise denomination tickets with an ulterior motive to collect back and reissue the tickets. Therefore, charges were framed and domestic enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. In the domestic enquiry, he has admitted the guilt. When the matter was referred to the Labour Court, the Labour Court found that the charges are proved. But, however, taking into considerati...
Vysya Bank Ltd. and Global Trust Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR178(KAR); [2000]241ITR178(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The validity of notices issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been assailed in all these petitions and therefore they are disposed of by this common order.2. The controversy is regarding attachment of fixed deposit receipts which have been attached on account of non-payment of income-tax dues by the assessees. Garnishee proceedings have accordingly been taken.3. The only point to be determined is as to whether the petitioner bank is under obligation to make the payment of fixed deposit of the assessees in default before its maturity.4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in accordance with the contract entered into, fixed deposit is payable at a later date and therefore it has not become due/The relevant provisions of Section 226(3)(i) and (iv) are as under :'226. (3)(i) The Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become du...
Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: [2001]124STC719(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Assessment orders have been challenged in these writ petitions, on the ground that, according to the petitioner, iron ore lumps are not liable to purchase tax under entry 1 of the Third Schedule to the Act and the petitioner can purchase them against form 37 under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. A clarification was issued by the Commissioner on February 5, 1991 that if iron ore lumps, iron ore fines and red oxide fines are used as raw material in the manufacture of other goods, dealer can purchase the same against form 37. Subsequently, the notification dated April 1, 1996 was issued by amending item 1 of the Third Schedule to the Act, to which, bauxite, chromite, iron, manganese and other ores including lumps and fines were added by Act No. 5 of 1996. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that, before April 1, 1996, lumps and fines cannot be included in the definition of iron ore. It is submitted that, in respect of fines, t...
Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Kar)60
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.Validity of notices issued under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been assailed in all these petitions and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The controversy is regarding attachment of fixed deposit receipts which have been attached on account of non-payment of income-tax dues by the assessees. Garnishee proceedings have accordingly been taken.3. The only point to be determined is as to whether the petitioner bank is under obligation to make the payment of fixed deposit of the assessees in default before its maturity.4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in accordance with the contract entered into, fixed deposit is payable at a later date and, therefore, it has not become due. Relevant provisions of section 226(3)(i) & (iv) are as under :'226(3)(i) The assessing officer or TRO may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee ...
Vishista Solvent Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: [2001]121STC492(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order since the controversy involved is one and the same.2. Assessment orders have been challenged on the ground that the solvent extracted oil sold to vanaspathi manufacturing units or to refining units has been wrongly treated as non-edible oil. A circular was also issued by the Commissioner, in which, the oil manufactured from oil cake was treated as edible oil (non-refined). It is submitted that, the manufacturer is covered by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, as amended from time to time governs the storage of solvent extracted oil. 'Edible oils' is defined under Clause 2(g) in which, it is stated that, any oil used directly or after processing for human consumption and includes hydrogenated vegetable oil, is an edible oil. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the edible oil will include the non-refined su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›