Karnataka Court January 2009 Judgments

J.C. Alveris Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)27VST145(Karn)

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing the impugned communication dated January 30, 2008 issued by the second respondent vide annexure C in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned and consequently quash the impugned final assessment order dated February 29, 2008 passed by the fourth respondent vide annexure E and the demand notice at annexure F dated July 11, 2008. Further, the petitioner has sought for a declaration, to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay entertainment tax to the respondents in respect of 'Krishna', a Kannada film screened by the petitioner between the date of the same being certified by the third respondent for 100 per cent tax exemption (i.e., from October 5, 2007 as per annexure A) to the date of communication of the order of cancellation/withdrawal/suspension of the certificate of 100 per cent tax exemption ; and consequently issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction prohibiting the r...

Smt. Sulochana Damodhar W/O Sri. Damodhar Vs. the State Transport Auth ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ409; 2009(4)KCCR2479; 2009(2)AIRKarR506(D.B);

Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Appellant in W.A. No. 840/07 was the petitioner in W.P. No. 16305/05. Respondents 1 to 4 were the original respondents. Respondents 5 and 6 are the impleaded respondents. Writ petition filed by the appellant having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 18.04.07, writ appeal has been filed to set aside the said order and to grant the relief prayed in the writ petition.Appellant in W.A. No. 851/07 was the petitioner in W.P. No. 18637/05. Questioning the order dated 18.04.07 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, by following the order passed in W.P. No. 16305/2005, writ appeal has been filed to set aside the said order and to grant the relief prayed in the writ petition.2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. As the question of law sought to be raised is common in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts of the case in W.A. 840/200...

Marappa and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1392; 2009(2)KarLJ517:AIR2009NOC2147

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 11-6-2008 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, on I.A. No. I in M.A. No. 28 of 2005 vide Annexure-A and to allow this writ petition by allowing the I.A. No. I filed in M.A. No. 28 of 2005, by calling for record from the file of I Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, have presented this writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that: petitioners assailing the correctness of the order dated 10th June, 1982 passed by the Tahsildar, Anekal have filed an appeal before the learned First Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in M.A. No. 28 of 2005 and along with the said appeal, they have filed I.A. No. I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay in filing the said appeal. The said application had come up for consideration before the Appellate Court on 11th June 2008. The Appellate Court, after ...

Thippanaika Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ288

ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. It is the case of a petitioner that the land bearing Sy. No. 48/7 an extent of 5 acres situated at Chowdanayakana Koppa in Shikaripura Taluk was granted to his father in the year 1951-52. Thereafter, the land was sold to the husband of the 3rd respondent on 1-4-1961. Proceedings have been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner and by the impugned order dated 16-12-2004 has set aside the sale and ordered for restoration of land in favour of the Government under the provisions of the Kamataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Aggrieved by the same two appeals were filed before the Deputy Commissioner one by the petitioner herein and the other by the 3rd respondent. The Deputy Commissioner passed a detailed order on 24-11-2005 and the corrigendum on 26-11-2006 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent was allowed and the order of the Assistant Commi...

Tirupati Chemicals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)27VST380(Karn)

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in these petitions is assailing the correctness of the reassessment order and demand notice in form VAT-180 dated December 16, 2008, passed by the respondent under Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (the KVAT Act, 2003) for the assessment period from April 2006 to March 2007 vide annexure G.2. The only grievance of the petitioner in these petitions is that, the petitioner is a partnership firm, registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, carrying on the activity of importing from outside country and also purchasing from outside the State of Karnataka and locally slack wax, residue wax, paraffin wax, refined wax, etc., and selling the same in the State of Karnataka and outside the State of Karnataka. The petitioner being a registered firm, has filed monthly returns for the period from April 2006 to March 2007 in form VAT-100 declaring the sales turnover of slack wax, residue wax and paraffin wax, refine...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Asst. Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Deepak Verma, J.1. Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Asst. Solicitor General appeared on behalf of appellants.2. Heard on admission.3. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') at the instance of revenue against the order dated 11/1/2008 passed in I.T. No. 607/BNG/2006 for the assessment year 2001-2002 by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B'.4. Learned Counsel for appellant strenuously argued before us that Tribunal committed an error in allowing the waiver of interest on the amount advanced to ASTIL as the same is contrary to the provisions contained under Section 36(2) of the Act. However, from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we find that this ground has not been dealt wife specifically. We do not even know whether this ground was at all urged, argued or advanced before the Tribunal. Confronted with this situation, learned Counsel for appellant sought permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to m...

Sri Mario Pires Vs. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1189

ORDERB. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. Heard Sri Vivekananda, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the Learned Government Advocate appearing for R-1 to 3. The R-4 though was served with the notice of this Writ Petition but remained unrepresented.2. Brief facts required for disposal of the writ petition are stated as under:The 4th respondent made an application to respondents-1 to 3 requesting them to furnish him information relating to the service conditions and assets and liability of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).The petitioner on coming to know the same has filed a representation requesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give him an opportunity of hearing before taking a decision on the application of R-4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ignoring his representation issued an endorsement to the 4th respondent informing him to obtain information by depositing necessary fee. The petitioner aggriev...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Endeavour Estates P. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]319ITR106(KAR); [2009]319ITR106(Karn)

Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri Aravind and Aravind Chauhan, for Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants, on the question of admission.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated September 19, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B', in the appellants' I. T. A. No. 908/Bang/2006 for the assessment year 1999-2000.3. The appeal preferred by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the additions made in respect of capital gains were deleted, vide order dated September 4, 2006. Therefore, there was no justification in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.4. In the light of this development, the Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no case made out to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended th...

The Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited Vs. Karn ...

Court: Karnataka

Deepak Verma, J.1. Sri. P.S. Ranganathan, learned Counsel appeared for appellant, Sri. P.S. Manjunath with Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel appealed for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Aditya Sondhi, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No. 2.2. Respondent No. 2 files a Memo along with copy of the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Learned Company Judge in Company Application No. 865/2008, through its counsel, Sri. Aditya Sondhi, which is taken on record.3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents contended that with the passage of time, this appeal has been rendered infructuous. According to them, pursuant to the order passed by Learned Company Judge on 25.11.2008, the vehicles, bulldozers and granulated mixing plant have already been sold in public auction and the amounts have been received, after the sale from the prospective auction purchases but the same is to be deposited wife the Learned Company Judge. It has also been contended that pursuant to the said auction having been ...

N.G. Puttaswamy and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2)KCCR1201; 2009(2)KLJ521; 2009(3)AIRKarR65

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of Annexure-C passed by the third respondent-Commissioner, Davanagere Municipal Corporation releasing foodgrains for implementation of the contract of various developmental activities as set out in Schedule I to Annexure-C.2. The first petitioner was Ex-Chairman of APMC, Davanagere and the second petitioner was also Ex-Chairman of City Municipality, Davanagere. The first petitioner is also a contractor. Both of them are social workers. They claim that they are interested in the welfare of Davanagere City Corporation. Their grievance is that as per Schedule I to Annexure-C, various construction works were undertaken by the second respondent. The said contract was awarded to respondents 4 and 5. The total value of the said contract is Rs. 4,79,04,000.00. As per Annexure-C, foodgrains were released for being distributed to persons who are employed in the said construction work. It is their further conte...