Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: customs tariff amendment act 2003 chapter x cereals Court: karnataka Page 9 of about 408 results (0.124 seconds)

Feb 09 2015 (HC)

Infosys Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit

Court : Karnataka

..... value in respect thereof.44. it is a misconception to contend that what is being taxed is intellectual input. what is being taxed under the customs act read with the customs tariff act and the customs valuation rules is not the input alone but goods whose value has been enhanced by the said inputs. the final product at the time of import ..... a mere reading of the said provision that any moveable article brought into india by a passenger as part of his baggage can make him liable to pay customs duty as per the customs tariff act. an item which does not fall within clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of section 2(22) will be regarded as coming under section ..... . it is a contract to permit right to use enhancements, upgrades, maintenance and releases as well as annual technical support services as it was indivisible by virtue of 46th amendment which falls under clause (b) of article 366 (29a).46. implementation is also set out in annexure-iv under the heading services . it reads as under :- definitions .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 2023 (HC)

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Vs. M/s Shamanur Sugars Limit ...

Court : Karnataka

..... the trading margin under the authority of delegated legislation under section 178 vide the impugned notification dated 23-1-2006. (vii) section 121, as amended by the electricity (amendment) act 57 of 2003, came into force with effect from 27-1-2004. consequently, there is no merit in the contention advanced that the said ..... cerc (unscheduled interchange and related matter) regulations of 2009 more particularly regulation 2 (ee) and submits that gaming is recognized mode which is not beneficial to the customers and/or the grid. 7.50. regulation 2 (ee) is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:- (ee) gaming in relation to these regulations, shall mean an ..... and discharging its functions. (4) in discharge of its functions, the central commission shall be guided by the national electricity policy, national electricity plan and tariff policy published under section 3. 7.47. 2nd petitioner sldc is neither generating company nor a transmission licensee. the duties of sldc are statutory in nature .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2017 (HC)

The Tabocco Institute of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Karnataka

..... frame rules does not authorize the central government to adopt measures which might be recommended by an international convention. though an amendment was brought to cotpa vide 154 2007 amendment (amendment act 38 of 2007), the said amendment is not pursuant to any international treaty or convention not is it for implementation of fctc. the stand of the ..... decision dated 26/03/2013 could not have been finalized at the level of the officers or representatives of the civil aviation, central board of excise and customs etc. after concurrence of the finance ministry, the minutes of the meeting had to be placed 229 before the ministers concerned as per the rules of business ..... . mrf limited: (a) in mrf limited, the facts were that the government of goa issued a notification dated 30/09/1991, granting 25% rebate in tariff to consumers of low tension and high-tension power supply. however, the said notification was rescinded by a subsequent notification dated 31/03/1995. another notification was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2021 (HC)

Sri. Srinivas V Vs. The Tahsildar

Court : Karnataka

..... takes away jurisdiction of civil court; (10) though section 7 mandates constitution of additional benches across the state, same have not been constituted; (11) amendment act provided for abatement of proceedings only in respect of two enactments and it is discriminatory.24. before embarking upon the journey of discussion on the above points, ..... the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution ..... notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority, the provisions of klgp act-2011 as amended from time- to-time would prevail and the offence of land grabbing committed would continue. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2021 (HC)

Mrs Rosamma Varghese Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... takes away jurisdiction of civil court; (10) though section 7 mandates constitution of additional benches across the state, same have not been constituted; (11) amendment act provided for abatement of proceedings only in respect of two enactments and it is discriminatory.24. before embarking upon the journey of discussion on the above points, ..... the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution ..... notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority, the provisions of klgp act-2011 as amended from time- to-time would prevail and the offence of land grabbing committed would continue. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2021 (HC)

Smt Sharadamma Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... takes away jurisdiction of civil court; (10) though section 7 mandates constitution of additional benches across the state, same have not been constituted; (11) amendment act provided for abatement of proceedings only in respect of two enactments and it is discriminatory.24. before embarking upon the journey of discussion on the above points, ..... the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution ..... notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority, the provisions of klgp act-2011 as amended from time- to-time would prevail and the offence of land grabbing committed would continue. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2021 (HC)

Smt Janaki Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... takes away jurisdiction of civil court; (10) though section 7 mandates constitution of additional benches across the state, same have not been constituted; (11) amendment act provided for abatement of proceedings only in respect of two enactments and it is discriminatory.24. before embarking upon the journey of discussion on the above points, ..... the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution ..... notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority, the provisions of klgp act-2011 as amended from time- to-time would prevail and the offence of land grabbing committed would continue. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2021 (HC)

Sri Prakashnath Vs. State By Special Public Prosecutor

Court : Karnataka

..... takes away jurisdiction of civil court; (10) though section 7 mandates constitution of additional benches across the state, same have not been constituted; (11) amendment act provided for abatement of proceedings only in respect of two enactments and it is discriminatory.24. before embarking upon the journey of discussion on the above points, ..... the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution ..... notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority, the provisions of klgp act-2011 as amended from time- to-time would prevail and the offence of land grabbing committed would continue. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2021 (HC)

Smt. Priyadarshini Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... takes away jurisdiction of civil court; (10) though section 7 mandates constitution of additional benches across the state, same have not been constituted; (11) amendment act provided for abatement of proceedings only in respect of two enactments and it is discriminatory.24. before embarking upon the journey of discussion on the above points, ..... the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution ..... notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority, the provisions of klgp act-2011 as amended from time- to-time would prevail and the offence of land grabbing committed would continue. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2021 (HC)

Sri T Krishna Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... takes away jurisdiction of civil court; (10) though section 7 mandates constitution of additional benches across the state, same have not been constituted; (11) amendment act provided for abatement of proceedings only in respect of two enactments and it is discriminatory.24. before embarking upon the journey of discussion on the above points, ..... the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution ..... notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority, the provisions of klgp act-2011 as amended from time- to-time would prevail and the offence of land grabbing committed would continue. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //