Court : Karnataka
..... order to answer this question it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions under the cenvat credit rules, 2004 (prior to its amendment from 1.4.2008), central excise act, 1944 as well as the finance act, 1994. 8. in exercise of the power conferred by section 37 of the central excise act 1994 and section 94 of the finance act, 1994 the central government have promulgated the cenvat credit rules 2004. it defines input, input service, output service, persons liable for paying service tax, ..... manufacturer to take credit of the service tax on the value of such services. 2. the assessee m/s.abb limited, maneja, vadodara is engaged in the manufacture of transformer, circuit breaker, etc., falling under chapter 85 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. the assessee is having central excise registration no.aaaca3834bxm007. the assessee is availing the cenvat credit as per the provisions of the cenvat credit rules, 2004. they are also paying service tax on the service .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(Kar)335; [2010]321ITR209(KAR); [2010]321ITR209(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The above appeals are all by the revenue directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, where under the Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by different resident - assessees in respect of different assessment years by holding that the resident - assessees were not liable for deduction of any part of the payments made by them to non-resident suppliers as price (for consideration) for the software which the resident - assessees had acquired/purchased from the non-residents for the purposes of the activities/business of the resident -assessees in the background of the nature of their liability/obligation under the provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] by holding that the subject payments were not in the nature of royally payments within the meaning of Section 9[1][vi] of the Act and if it is not royalty it is not income and if it was not income in the hands of the non-resident as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR987
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In all these cases since the question of law and fact are common they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. In all these cases petitioners are the Assessees under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short 'KST Act') and Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'CST Act').3. The Government of Karnataka has issued Industrial Policy 1996-2001 in GO. No. CI 30 SPC 96, dated 15-3-1996 offering tax concessions and incentives to new industrial units and also to the existing units making investment in expansion/modernization/ diversification. Eligible industrial units were extended the option availing incentives in the form of sales tax exemption (KST/CST) or in the form of sales tax deferral (KST/CST). The said Policy was implemented by Notification under Section 19-C of the KST Act in FD 32 CSL 96 (I) dated 15-11-1996 and under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 19-C of the KST Act in No. FD 32 CSL 96 (II) dated 15-11-1996. Petitioners had a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant49; AIR1955Mys49
Medapa, C.J. 1. The petitioners in these four petitions pray under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ or prohibition against the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the notice under Section 34, Mysore Income-tax Act or in the alternative for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notice. 2. The impugned proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax officer, Urban Circle and by the Special Income-tax Officer, Bangalore, on 15-3-1951, 29-3-1952, 2-12-1953 and 24-2-1954 respectively for the purpose of assessing under Section 34, Mysore Income-tax Act, the escaped income of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to start such proceedings. The argument in support of this contention is two-fold: (1) that Section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act stood, repealed on and from April 1, 1950 and that therefore the notice issued under that section by the Income-tax Officer af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2007)10VST33(Karn)
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner being the 100% Export Oriented Unit, has sought for quashing the Notification dated 30.11.2001 bearing No.FD 161 CSL 2001 (II) vide Annexure-B' to the writ petition in so far as it relates to omission of the words 'excluding petroleum products like petrol, diesel, furnaceoil, naptha and LSHS used as consumables or captive power generation units'. He has also sought for quashing the endorsement dated 2.2.2005 issued by the 4th respondent-Commercial Tax Officer (Inteligence)-VHI, South Zone, Bangalore, vide Annexure-C2. It is submitted by Sri T. Suryanarayana, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Notification vide Annexure-B granting certain exemptions, incentives and concessions runs contrary to the New Industrial Policy 2001 of the State Government and consequently, that portion of the Notification by which the words 'excluding petroleum products like petrol, diesel, furnace oil, naptha and LSHS used as consumablesor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(171)LC1(Karnataka); 2009(4)KarLJ683
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a manufacturer of Block Boards and timber boards in respect of which the petitioner-a private company was being assessed to duty payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood at the relevant point of time and as amended (referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter) within the jurisdiction of the third respondent viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise at Mangalore.2. The petitioner in respect of the period from July 1991 to November 1991 had cleared the manufactured goods by paying duty provisionally and cleared the goods on self-assessment by filing RT-12 returns as envisaged under Rule 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and referred to as the Rules, indicating the duty liability as nil in the light of a claim of the petitioner that the goods are not dutiable having been provisionally accepted.3. The provisional clearance was on the premise that the goods manufactured by the petitioner were to be classified u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR1722; 2008(5)KarLJ378; 2008(3)KCCR1419; 2008(3)AIRKarR394
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner is the Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, the second respondent herein. The said Commission is constituted under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He was appointed by the order dated 5.10.2007 passed under Section 4 of the Act. The term of office prescribed under the Act is for a period of three years from the date of appointment, which is 'subject to the pleasure of the Government'.2. On 9-10-2007, President of India promulgated President's rule by issuing proclamation under Article 356 of Constitution of India. After promulgation of President's Rule, the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka issued a Note dated 12.10.2007 instructing all the Principal Secretaries to Government to request the non-official Chairmen of all the Corporation/Bodies to resign and surrender the official vehicles attached to them immediately. Copy of the said Note...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(Kar)414; [2001]247ITR356(KAR); [2001]247ITR356(Karn); [2001]114TAXMAN120(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Commissioner can condone the delay on the part of the declarant in paying the tax in respect of the income declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997.2. The Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (in short 'the scheme'), introduced by Chapter IV of the Finance Act, 1997 ('the Act' for short), was in force between July 1, 1997, and December 31, 1997. The relevant provisions of the Scheme are :Section 64 of the Act relates to charge of tax on voluntarily disclosed income. It provides for filing of a declaration in respect of any undisclosed income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act (as enumerated in Subsection (1) of Section ,64) in the manner provided in Section 65, between July 1, 1997, and December 31, 1997.3. Section 65 provides that a declaration under Section 64(1) shall be made to the Commissioner and such declaration shall be in the prescribed form.4. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR2989; 2007(5)KarLJ272; 2007(4)KCCRSN264; 2007(4)AIRKarR546
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In all these cases, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences dated 03.10.2006, whereby the election to the Senate of the University from Teachers other than the Professors' Constituency was set aside and the University was directed to hold fresh elections from the said constituency in accordance with law.2. Brief facts of the case are as under:Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (for short 'University') issued a calendar of events for election of members to the Senate from 'amongst Teachers other than Professors' as per Sub-section (xii) of Section 21 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The calendar of events was notified on 03.06.2006. As many as 15 teachers filed their nomination papers for the election to the membership of the Senate from 'Teachers other than Professors' constituency. Five teachers were required to be ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1955]27ITR549(KAR); [1955]27ITR549(Karn)
Medapa, C.J. 1. The petitioners in these four petitions pray under the provisions of article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition against the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the notice under section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act or in the alternative for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notice. 2. The impugned proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Officer Urban Circle, and by the Special Income-tax Officer, Bangalore, on 15th March, 1951, 29th March, 1952, 2nd December, 1953, and 24th February, 1954, respectively for the purpose of the Mysore Income-tax Act, the escaped income of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to start such proceedings. The argument in support of this contention is two-fold : (1) that section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act stood repealed on and from 1st April, 1959, and that therefore the notice issued under that section by the I...
Tag this Judgment!