Court : Karnataka
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the original defendant No. 3, challenging the judgment and decree dated March 22, 1974, made against them in O.S. No. 86 of 1969 by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City. 2. Respondent No. 1, Andhra Bank Ltd., since nationalised and now called as the Andhra Bank ('the bank'), sued defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to recover a sum of Rs. 1,63,300 on the following allegations. 3. That defendant No. 1, Seth Menghraj Parasuram ('Parasuram'), was having financial accommodation with the bank under various sets of accounts. As security for the amounts advanced, he has endorsed promissory notes and other securities in favour of the bank executed in his favour by his customers. On April 4, 1966, defendant No. 2, Abdul Jabbar, executed a promissory note in favour of Parasuram along with a consideration receipt agreeing to pay on demand to him or to his order, the sum of Rs. 1,20,000 together with interest th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Hegde, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the validity of the Gift-tax Act (Central Act No. 18 of 1958) to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter, in so far as it purports to reach gifts of 'lands and buildings' is challenged. The gifts with which we are concerned in these petitions are gifts of agricultural lands. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1077/59, though the gift deed in question (date January 21, 1958) includes properties other than agricultural lands, the tax levied in respect of non-agricultural lands is not challenged. The total tax levied on the petitioner by the Second Gift-tax Officer, Mangalore, as per his proceedings No. 83/58-59 dated November 25, 1959, is Rs. 35,612. Out of this sum, a sum of Rs. 34,036.18 was levied as gift-tax in respect of a gift of a coffee plantation. It is this levy which the subject-matter of challenge in that petition. 3. In Writ Petition No. 19/1960, the settlement deed dated May 14, 1957, the one with which we are concerned, includes only agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERB. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. The appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Shimoga Dist. Shimoga, (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner').2. For the sake of convenience, parties axe referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Commissioner.3. The brief facto of the case are.On 20/2/2002 when the claimant was working at a Cleaner in the lorry bearing Regn.No.KA. 14/5050 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein, the lorry met with an accident and as a result, he sustained injuries. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the Commissioner, seeking compensation and the said claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing statement of objections.The claimant in support of hic case examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor) who treated him as P.W.3. He has produced about 9 documents, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9. The Insurance Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(1)KarLJ224
ORDER1. Petitioner who is a retired Chief Engineer, has filed this petition as public interest litigation challenging the validity of agreement dated 3-4-1997, Annexure-A entered into between the Government of Karnataka and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited, arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 (for short, 'respondents 1 and 2 respectively'). The agreement has been executed by the Secretary, Public Works Department as an authorised officer of respondent 1 under Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India, for and on behalf of Governor of Karnataka. By this agreement the second respondent is authorised to construct and provide Infrastructure Corridor Project between Bangalore and Mysore ('the Project', for short), consisting of residential, industrial plants, water treatment and other infrastructure developments as set out in the 4th para of the preamble in the said agreement. According to the petitioner the agreement entered into between respondents 1 and 2 is detrimental to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2007)9VST594(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar J.1. Writ petition by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act'), questioning the legality of the Government Notification bearing No. FD 23 CET 2001, dated March 31, 2001 See [2001] 122 STC (St.) 67. (copy at annexure B) and for quashing of the same and also for issue of consequential mandamus to the respondent-State and its officers not to take any action as against the petitioner under the impugned notification.2. The writ petition also prays for a declaration to the effect that entry 103 in the First Schedule to the Act is a provision which can be worked upon only by the State Legislature and not by the executive of the State Government in the exercise of its delegated powers under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. The petition prays for several other prayers and a residuary prayer.3. The additional prayer in terms of prayer (i) has also been sought for, for quashing the assessment orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR279; (2008)11VST267(Karn)
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the assessee under Section 15-A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. The assessment year is 1992-93.2. Brief facts which are germane for disposal of the revision petition can be stated as under;The Petitioner is a limited company manufacturing, among others, air-conditioners and refrigerators in various States in India and the countrywide marketing network with branches including one at Bangalore. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short CST Act), Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short KST Act) and Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short KTEG Act). The petitioner's branch at Bangalore is engaged in selling its manufactured goods. For the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed its return under the KTEG Act declaring the value of goods arrived at by taking the amount shown in the stock transfer invoice issued by the manufacturing unit which represe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2007)5VST292(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. D.V. Shylendra Kumar J.-The Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act') is an enactment by the Karnataka State Legislature to augment the revenue to the State of Karnataka, like any other taxing statutes is the subject-matter of several amendments as also challenges before the courts including the validity of the parent Act and the amendments.2. In the present instance, it is this Act, as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2000, which is brought for scrutiny before this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for judicial review of the legislative action. The petitioners had also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the assessment orders that had been passed in respect of the petitioners for the years 1995-96 to 1998-99 and 2000-01 by applying the law as had been amended under the Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2000.3. This Court in terms of the order dated J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD244(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assesses and interveuers involves question of far-reaching importance vitally affecting particularly individual assessees engaged in profession who maintain their accounts on what is called "the cash system". The question has been referred to the Special Bench in view of conflict of views by different Benches of the Tribunal and also its considerable general importance to persons engaged in profession, either individually or in partnership with others. We have, therefore, had the benefit of hearing not only the counsel appearing for the particular assessee, but also hearing the counsels for interveners, representatives including professional bodies and associations like the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society, who sought permission, and were allowed to intervene. Counsel for another assessee, Y. P. Trivedi in WT Appeal No. 197 (Bom.) of 1980, on somewhat different facts, was also heard as involving some identic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. These two writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar Entry Tax Act were taken up for hearing in light of the direction of the Supreme Court in order dated July 14, 2006 in Jindal Stainless Limited v. State of Haryana : (2006)7SCC271 .2. Having regard to the fact that the law in Bihar underwent many changes during the past six years, it becomes necessary to begin at the beginning and to take a brief look at some developments taking place in the past.3. The Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 16 of 1993) came into force on August 22, 1993. According to its preamble, the Act provided for levy and collection of tax on entry of goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein. Section 2(c) of the Act defined 'entry of goods' as follows:(c) 'Entry of goods' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means entry of goods into a local area from any place out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1984Kant182; 1984(2)KarLJ236
ORDER1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), these cases were posted before us for disposal.2. As the petitioners in these cases have challenged the validity of one and the same Act, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. As early as on 31-12-1932, the then Maharaja of Mysore. who was the sovereign Ruler of the then Princely State of Mysore, a model Princely State, aided by a representative assembly and a legislative council, gave his assent to a fairly simple enactment called the Mysore Betting Tax Act, 1932 (Mysore Act 9 of 1932) (hereinafter referred to as the 1932 Act) providing for the imposition of taxes on certain forms of betting in that State. Even after the merger of that Princely State in the Indian Union. the promulgation of the Indian Constitution, the formation of the new State of Mysore, now called as Karnataka, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the 1932 Act has continued on the statute book of the new State with its operation in the ar...
Tag this Judgment!