Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR844; [2004]138STC75(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is the Karnataka Construction Corporation Ltd. which is a Government of Karnataka undertaking and a registered dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this petition filed under Section 23(1) of the Act, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order dated 3rd June 2003 made in STA No. 790 of 2002 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal had confirmed the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Commissioner'), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the order made by the Assessing Officer rejecting the claim of the petitioner that a portion of the work shown in the composition does not fall under Section 5B of the Act.2. The facts leading to this petition can be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004]138STC57(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. An interesting question with regard to interpretation to be placed on Section 17(6) of the Sales Tax Act in the light of the notification under Section 8A is raised in the case of hand. The petitioner made an application in form 8-AA in terms of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules') to take the benefit of an assessment under Section 17(6). Returns were submitted and details were furnished to the first respondent. The first respondent proposed action to complete the assessment of the petitioner for a normal assessment without reference to composition application. The second respondent issued a notification dated December 19, 1996 thereby total exemption was extended on the turnover involved in the execution of works contract relating to Information Technology Park Limited.2. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner on an earlier occasion. In the light of the order of this Court in the writ petition, the first respondent issued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2089; JT2002(Suppl1)SC118; 2002(2)KarLJ67; 2002(4)SCALE468; (2003)9SCC583; [2002]3SCR854; [2002]127STC105(SC)
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. In this batch of appeals by special leave common questions arise for consideration and therefore the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The question which arise for consideration are whether Sub-section 6 of the Section 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Act No. 5 of 1996 is unconstitutional, and secondly, whether the amendment brought in Clause (i) of Sub-section 6 of Section 17 of the Act by Act No.7 of 1997 retrospectively is also unconstitutional. The High Court of Karnataka has answered both these questions in the negative and against the appellants. The main judgment was rendered in the writ petition preferred by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 902 of 199. The remaining matters were disposed of by the High Court following the aforesaid judgment.3. To determine the question that arise for consideration, it is necessary to notice the legislati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2001)1MLJ438
ORDER1. The Appellants who suffered decree before the lower appellate Court has filed this second appeal. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.6860 of 1986 before the Trial Court for ejectment. The 1st appellant/defendant was in possession of the suit property bearing Door No.39, Bundar Street, Chennai-1. The monthly rent was Rs.5,000. There are four floors. Each floor is measuring 3,121 sq.ft. The respondent/plaintiff issued a notice under Ex.A1 dated 21.6.1986 determining the tenancy. Thereafter the respondent filed the said suit on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The lower Court dismissed the suit on the basis that the plaintiff waived the notice by accepting the rent subsequent to the issue of the notice and so the said suit without any notice cannot be sustained in law. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-temple filed appeal in A.S.No.315 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The lower appellate Court accepting the case of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]125STC287(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. Sri Veda Murthy, learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents and is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks from today.2. Though the matter is listed in preliminary hearing 'B' group, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the Us, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. Petitioner is a contractor. He is also registered himself under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1997-98, petitioner had approached the respondent-assessing authority seeking permission for composition of tax as provided under Section 17(6) of the Act. Accepting the request so made by the petitioner, the assessing authority, has proceeded with the matter under Section 17(6) of the Act. Thereafter, petitioner had approached the respondent-authorities requesting them to complete the assessment in his case not under Section 17(6) of the Act, but under Section 5-B of the Act. The request so made by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2001]121STC24(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. These sales tax revision petitions in respect of same respondent-assessee have arisen in identical facts and circumstances and raises common question of law, which are being heard and decided together.2. Sales Tax Revision No. 464 of 1999 relates to assessment period ending on March 31, 1990 and Sales Tax Revision No. 463 of 1999 relates to assessment period ending on March 31, 1989. The issues relate to exigibility of packing material used by the assessee in connection with job-work of manufacturing carpet woollen mark by the assessee. For the assessment year 1988-89 the total amount received for job-work as disclosed by the assessee was Rs. 38,950. In this turnover of job-work valuation of packing material was not separately shown. In original assessment order dated February 20, 1992 the total turnover was held as not taxable. However, as the assessing authority held the belief that turnover disclosed by the assessee did not include the price of packing material u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]127STC103(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The arguments advanced before us are same as were raised before the learned single Judge.2. The learned single Judge after going through the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised before it crystallised the points into two questions reproduced below :'(i) Whether Sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Act as amended by means of Act No. 5 of 1996 is unconstitutional and as such, declared to be void ?(ii) Whether Act No. 7 of 1997, which has made Act No. 5 of 1996 retrospective in operation, is unconstitutional and as such, declared to be void ?'The learned single Judge concluded the first point against the appellants relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India : AIR1997SC3640 which is directly on the point and covers the point as in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner unsuccessfully tried before the single Judge that the judgment in State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India : AIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3100
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner has issued five cheques for a sum of Rs. 99,022.97 beside Rs. 10,000/- being compound fee. The petitioner carried on business in job work of rubberizing spindles. The second respondent inspected the premises of the petitioner on 28.5.1991 and it was found that there is a liability of tax under Entry Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act as well as K.S.T. Act. Statement of petitioner was recorded wherein the liability was admitted and taxes were paid under protest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that unless there being a determination of liability of tax the provisions of Section 31 of the K.S.T. Act, or Section 23 of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, could not be invoked.2. Arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.Section 31 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is as under:-'31. Composition of offences:- The prescribed authority may accept from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]111STC322(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. In Writ Petition No. 26445 of 1997, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as amended by Act No. 5 of 1996 and Act No. 7 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In Writ Petition Nos. 30363 and 30364 of 1997, the petitioners, in addition to the challenge made to the constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Act, have prayed for quashing of the orders of assessments made by the assessing authorities in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 12(3) read with section 17(6) of the Act, for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Copies of the said assessment orders dated April 14, 1997 and April 11, 1997 have been produced as annexures A and B respectively. 2. Since common questions of law are raised in these petitions, these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Before referring to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1020
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In the field of taxation, the Legislature enjoys an extremely wide discretion as regards classification of items and the choice of persons, method and rates for the levy of taxes that it may decide to impose. While fiscal statutes are not totally immune from challenge on the touchstone of article 14 of the Constitution, so long as the Legislature refrains from a clear and hostile discrimination, the courts would not substitute their own standards and classifications for those made by the Legislature. It is also equally well-settled that the State does not have to tax everything in order to tax something and that its choice of picking up districts, batches, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if made reasonably ought to be respected by the courts. See (1) East India Tobacco Company. v. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1963]1SCR404 , (2) P. M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka [1988] Supp 3 SCR 155, (3) Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associati...
Tag this Judgment!