Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1971]27STC434(Kar)
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions of law and will be dealt with together. We shall give the facts in W.P. No. 3088 of 1970 in order to understand the questions that fall to be decided. 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His case was that on 27th December, 1969, the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Intelligence Branch, who is the second respondent, along with his staff raided the business premises of the petitioner and took possession of some books of accounts and other documents by taking a signed statement from one of the partners of the petitioner-firm wherein it was made to appear that those books of accounts and other documents were voluntarily handed over to the second respondent for the purpose of verification and return. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 20th March, 1970, as per annexure B, from the second respondent, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1966KAR180; (1966)1MysLJ135; [1966]18STC43(Kar)
Hegde, J.1. These are references under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The two references raise identical questions of law. The same assessee has filed these two applications. Hence, they will be dealt with together. The questions of law referred for the opinion of this Court are these : (i) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli, in the assessee's case for the half-year ending 30th September, 1957, is barred by limitation (ii) Whether the failure on the part of the assessing authority to issue a notice under section 15 of the 'Act' has vitiated the assessment (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the assessment under section 14(5) of the 'Act' was permissible in the eye of law, in the assessee's case and (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the assessee's failure to furnis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1974KAR608; 1974(1)KarLJ337; [1974]33STC551(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This is a revision petition by a dealer under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act), and it is directed against the order of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 2nd March, 1973, made in S.T.A. No. 756 of 1972. 2. The short question that arises for decision is whether the petitioner's appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the order of assessment made on him by the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, V Circle, Bangalore, was within time. 3. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. By the assessment order dated 31st March, 1971, made by the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, V Circle, Bangalore, a sum of Rs. 6,526 was assessed as tax payable for the period 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. The assessment was made on the best of judgment basis after rejecting the return submitted by the petitioner. The notice of demand was served on him on 24th November, 1971. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3316
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. These petitions are connected. Hence they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The land in question viz., S.No. 50/1 of Uruduve Paisari land in Negalli Karkalli village of Somwarpet Taluk measures 47 acres 72 cents. The petitioners made applications for grant of an extent of 4 acres each in the said survey number before the Tahsildar, Somwarpet under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Land Grant Rules'). The Tahsildar, after due enquiry by the order dated 16-8-1976 granted 4 acres to each of the petitioners herein except the petitioner in W.P.No. 10210/80 who was granted 5 acres on 23-5-77.3. Pursuant to the grant, there was a measurement and the area granted to each of the petitioners was identified. Saguvali Chits were issued to the petitioners on 1-6-1977. The case of the petitioners is that they were also put in possession of the respective areas granted to them under the Land Grant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3080; 1996(41)KarLJ137
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. In this batch, of writ petitions, the common question of law involved is as to whether any person, not being a dealer in any goods, causing an entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for its use therein, is liable to levy of tax under section 4B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the motor vehicles of various makes at places outside the State of Karnataka for various reasons. After so purchasing they brought the vehicles in the State of Karnataka for their personal use. Petitioners have specifically averred that they do not carry on any business in any goods and as such are not dealers in any goods. Their complaint is that their application for registration of the said vehicles filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not being entertained by the respective Transport Officers on the ground that unless they pay entry tax on the import of vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.21876-87/2010 dated 07.01.2011.) 1. In all these appeals, the question raised relates to the competence of the State to levy Sales Tax/VAT on telecommunication service, interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and upholding the rule of law. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. 2. For the purpose of clarity, the facts pleaded by appellants/petitioners in each of these cases are set out in brief. FACTUAL MATRIX W.A.Nos.654/2011, 817-828/2011, 789/2011, 790/2011, 805-816/2011, 792-803/2011, 791/2011 and 829-840/2011. 3. The appellant in all these appeals – M/s. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short herein after referred to as the ‘BSNL’) is wholly owned Government of India undertaking providing all types of telecom services in the country except the met...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.10882/2008 (T-RES) dated 31.01.2009. This STRP filed under Section 65(1) of KVAT Act, Against the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2009 passed in STA.No.263/2007 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing the appeal filed under Section 72(1) of KVAT Act 2003.) 1. All these appeals are preferred by the State, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9689/2006 and other connected matters, wherein the provisions of sub-Section(1) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) were declared unconstitutional. 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Writ Petition. 3. All the petitioners are registered dealers under the Act. Section 35 of the Act read with Rule 38 prescribes that ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This STA Filed U/S 24(1) KST Act, Against The Revision Order Dated: 2.3.2010 Passed In No.Smr/Kst/Dvo-Ii/Cr-25/09-10, On The File Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Zone-Ii, Bangalore, Revising The Order Of Joint Commissioner Dated 30.9.2006 And Re-Fixing The Liability. Dilip B Bhosale, J.: 1. This sales tax appeal under Section 24(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act") is preferred againsi; the order dated 2l,d March 2010 rendered by Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax (for short "the Second Revisional Authority") whereby, the Second Revisional Authority in exercise of the powers under Section 22-A(l) of the Act revised the order dated 30th September 2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner (for short "the First Revisional Authority") under Section 21(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2002-2003 and confirmed the proposals made earlier vide notice dated 15th June 2009. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Assessment)-21, Banga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay over to Respondent No.3 or Respondent No.4 the sale proceeds of the property, more particularly described in Exh B to the Petition (for short the said property ) and direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue a no claim certificate and or discharge certificate to the Petitioners. The Petitioners have also sought a mandamus directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to forbear and refrain from, in any manner, asserting any charge on the property more particularly described in Exh B to the Petition and/or from taking any coercive steps in respect of said property for recovery of any Sales Tax dues of one M/s Weiler International Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (for short the Defau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1365; 1985(2)KarLJ397; [1985]60STC142(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us, these cases were posted before a Division Bench for disposal. 2. A statutory Board called 'the Coffee Board' ('the Board') which was formerly called the Indian Coffee Market Expansion Board constituted and functioning under the Coffee Act of 1942 (Central Act VII of 1942) ('the Coffee Act') is the common petitioner before us and the principal question that arises for our determination is whether it is exigible to purchase tax or not under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('KST Act'). In order to decide that principal and certain other allied questions, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not also in dispute in the first instance. 3. On the out break of the II World War, the Indian coffee that enjoyed precious export markets in European and other advanced countries lost them and the industry was facing a crisis. With the object of rehabilitating the industry and placing it on a so...
Tag this Judgment!