Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This writ Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the impugned order dt: 18.3.2016 issued by the R-2 vide Annex-A is one without jurisdiction and etc.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru- Respondent No. 2 directing him to select a non-objectionable place for his conditionally renewed CL-9 licence and make an application for shifting of the said liquor vending shop before 15.06.2016, failing which, the licence will liable to be withdrawn under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the licence premises may be liable to be closed down. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Notification Sl.No. 58 Annexure-C dated 17.04.1998, which is quoted below, submitted that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the said impugned communication/order and threaten to withdraw the licence itself on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1772
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. In these batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are licensees for vend of country liquor dispute their liability to pay the rental for the period during which shops were ordered to be closed pursuant to notification issued under Section 21 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Incidentally, some of them have challenged the notification issued under Section 21 of the Act. Validity of Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise (lease of right of retail vend of liquors) Rules, 1969 which deprives them from claiming compensation for closure or shifting is called in question; and common prayer is to forbearrespondents from collecting the rentals for the disputed period/s.2. Uncontroverted facts are that petitioners are purchasers of privilege of vend of liquor by offering highest bids, the particulars of which have been set out in the respective Petitions. During the lease period, elections to the State Legislature, bye-election, ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2000)163CTR(Kar)410
ORDERV.K. Singhal, JIn all these Income Tax Reference Cases since controversies are common, they are decided by this common order. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law : i.e.,In ITRC No, 4/96, the following question of law has been referred:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'Kist' amount payable to the government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'In ITRC No. 5/96, the following question of law has been referred:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the changed provisions in the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, especially the provisions of section 24 of the said Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'Kist' amount payable to the government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961'In ITRC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to strike down rule 3[1][C] of Karnataka Excise [Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors] Rules 1968 as Amendede by Notification Dt. 30.06.03, as per Ann-A so far as Petitioners are Concerned and Quash the Notification Dt. 3.7.09, produced at Ann-D, issued by the R1, in so far as Petitioners are Concerned.) 1. These set of Writ Petitions are filed seeking to strike down Rule 3(11) (c) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 as amended by Notification dated 30.06.2003 and also to quash the notification issued on 3.7.2009 by the 1st respondent and also quash the license in Form No.CL-II (c) dated 25.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of Mysore Sales International Limited., and for such other orders. 2. Petitioners are said to be CL-2 and CL-9 license holders respectively granted under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Heard the learned counsel Shri A. Shankar appearing for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General Shri Madhusudhan R. Naik appearing for Respondents 3 and 4 and Shri Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for Respondents 1 and 2. These petitions are all heard and disposed of by this common order, as they are by the same petitioner. However, the challenge is to assessment orders for different years, as is detailed hereunder. 2. The petitioner is a company, a Government of Karnataka Undertaking engaged in the business of canalization of liquor, beer and rectified spirit. The Assessing Officer, within whose jurisdiction the Company operates, had passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity) for the Assessment years 2010-11 and disallowed the Privilege Fee of Rs. 570,14,37,000/-and made disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act in a sum of Rs. 36,52,797/- on 27.02.2013. The Assessing Officer had also passed an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction against the respondent-Police to allow the petitioner to carry on the business in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the relevant Rules framed there under and in terms of the conditions imposed in the licence granted in Form CL-9. A direction is also sought against the respondents not to interfere with the smooth running of the business of the petitioner. 2. The essential grievance made in the writ petition is that despite the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No. 3743 of 2008 connected with W.P. No. 9345 of 2008 disposed of on 24-9-2008 holding that Rule 9 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of an Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 and Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 were unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India and therefore not enforceable, respondent-Police have been interfering with the petitioner from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2405; 1996(5)KarLJ469
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The short question which needs to be considered in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner, who is desirous of setting up an industry to manufacture toiletries, such as after-shave lotion, eudecolon etc., having denatured spirit as one of its inputs (raw material), is required to obtain a licence as per provisions of Section 6 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955 (in short the Central Act) and the rules framed thereunder namely, the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules 1956 (in short 'the Central Rules').2. Section 2 of the Central Act is the definition clause. Clause(a) of this Section defines the 'alcohol' to mean ethyl alcohol of any strength and purity having chemical composition C2H5OH. Clause(c) thereof defines 'dutiable goods' to mean the medicinal and toilet preparations specified in the schedule as being subject to the duties of excise levied under the said Act. Clause(k) of the Section defines ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR1951; 1996(3)KarLJ179
ORDERC.N. Ashwathanarayan Rao, J.This is a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner who is the owner of a Jeep bearing No. CND 3838 against an order passed by the Authorised Officer, Gulbarga on 26.06.1991 in Confiscation Proceedings No. 305/88-89 confiscating the said Jeep under Section 43-A and 43-B of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Cr.A.No. 18/91 by the Judgment dated 26.11.92.2. The facts which have led to this Revision Petition may briefly be stated as follows:-'The Police Sub-Inspector, Station Bazar Police Station, Gulbarga on 19.10.1988 after collecting the Panchas, on credible information that, the Chloral Hydrate was being transported in a Jeep near Shanti Nagar, proceeded with his staff and Panchas near Shantinagar Cross Road and kept road watch. At about 7.30 a.m. the Jeep bearing No. CND 3838 was found coming from Gabbur Road towards Gulbarga City. The Jeep was stopped. The Jeep was searched and found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. All these Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the Petitioners in these Petitions are challenging the vires of Notification dated 13/08/2009, amended Rule 64D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and are challenging the instruction dated 10/12/2009 which had been issued by Respondents on the ground that it is contrary to the proviso to section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act). 2. Petitioners in these Petitions have been granted mining lease of various plots of lands mentioned in respective Petitions and pursuant to the said lease which has been granted, they have been carrying on mining activities and are selling ore of various grades. The royalty payable by Petitioners in respect of the said mining lease is covered by provisions of section 9 read with Second Schedule to the MMDR Act The contention of the Petitioners in these Petitions is that the said roya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1521
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The petitioners who are CL-1 licence holders assailing the legality and validity of the impugned Rules dated 30.6.2003 vide Annexure-G have presented these Writ Petitions. Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that so far as prayers B and C are concerned, those two prayers may be dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in (STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. v. K.V. AMARNATH AND ORS. Civil Petition No. 3610/1998 DD 30.8.03). The submissions made by the learned Counsel is placed on record. Prayers (b) &(c) are accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.2. Now, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners confines these petitions so far as prayer (a) is concerned as stated supra. These petitioners claiming to be CL-1 licencee challenged the constitutional validity of the rules notified in the official gazette dated 30.6.2003 vide Annexures A1 to A6, respectively thereby amending...
Tag this Judgment!