Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash annexure B dated 10.3.2010, by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring jurisdiction on Dy. Commr. Of Comml. Taxes (Enforcement) 1 to pass assessment / reassessment orders under the VAT Act, 2003, etc.) Petitioner, a manufacturer of pesticides, is challenging the amendment brought in to the III Schedule of Entry 23 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 during 2008 permitting imposition of tax on insecticides that are used other than for agricultural purposes at 12.50% in stead of at 4%. According to the petitioner, he is a manufacturer of pesticides / insecticides. The order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) 1, South Zone for passing of assessment / reassessment order in the case of the petitioner under S.39(1) of the VAT Act for the tax period from August 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Petitioner, a manufacturer of pesticides, is challenging the amendment brought in to the III Schedule of Entry 23 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. 2003 during 2008 permitting imposition of tax on insecticides that are used other than for agricultural purposes at 12.50% in stead of at 4%.2. According to the petitioner, he is a manufacturer of pesticides/ insecticides. The order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) 1, South Zone for passing of assessment / reassessment order in the case of the petitioner under S.39(l) of the VAT Act for the tax period from August 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to January 2010, is opposed to principles of natural justice since already the authority has determined that petitioner is liable to pay tax at higher rate of 12.5% on sale of household insecticides, pesticides and rodenticides.3. Heard the counsel representing the parties.4. It is the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)223CTR(SC)321; JT2009(11)SC151; 2009(7)SCALE341(1); (2009)12SCC209; [2009]17STJ237(SC); 2009[14]STR593; [2009]20STT203; 2009(6)LC2739(SC); (2009)24VST1(SC); 2009AIRSCW5301
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether sale, promotion and marketing of lottery tickets would be exigible to `Service Tax' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as `the Act') is the question involved in this appeal which arises from a judgment and order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in Writ Petition (C) No. 19 of 2007.3. Respondents are agents of the State of Sikkim. The State Government floated 'schemes' whereby the total number of tickets therefor was prescribed. In terms of the said schemes, the respondent purchases all lottery tickets in bulk form on 'all sold basis'. It pays Rs. 70 per ticket for the face value of Rs. 100/-. In turn, it sells the ticket to its principal stockists on 'outright' and 'all sold basis': It makes a profit out of the margin out of the difference between the amounts received from the principal stockists and the amounts paid to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2010)29VST308(Karn)
B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned single judge dated March 6, 2009 (Sap India Private Limited v. State of Karnataka [2009] 23 VST 276 (Kar)) passed in W. P. Nos. 2647 to 2650 of 2009 by which the writ petitions filed by the appellants are dismissed. By an interim order dated March 30, 2009 stay as sought in Misc. W. 3042 of 2009 in these appeals was granted till the next date of hearing and extended subsequently and on April 24, 2009 an interim order of stay was granted subject to deposit of 25 per cent of the demand made by the respondent-authority. The stay order was challenged before the apex court and the same was stayed and further direction was given that the main matter in the appeals be disposed of by this Court. Hence, we have heard these writ appeals for final disposal.2. The demand made by the respondent-authority under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the KVAT Act', for short) pursuant to assessment orders passed ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1/18 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE13H DAY OF JUNE2018PRESENT THE HONBLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONBLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA S.T.A. No.71/2013 BETWEEN : M/s BHAVANI ENTERPRISES NO.18, SHIVAPURA, 2ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE. (REP. BY ITS PROP. SRI SATHYA PRAKASH AGARWAL) SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.1. SMT.CHANDRA KANTA AGARWAL W/O LATE SATHYA PRAKASH AGARWAL AGE:58. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O B-1204, ETA GARDENS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR BINNY MILL, BANGALORE-23. SRI RITESH AGARWAL, W/O LATE SATHYA PRAKASH AGARWAL AGE:35. YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O B-1204, ETA GARDENS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR BINNY MILL, BANGALORE-23. SMT.SHRUTI AGARWAL, D/O LATE SATHYA PRAKASH AGARWAL AGE:31. YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O B-1204, ETA GARDENS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, 2.3. Date of Order 13-06-2018, STA No.71/2013 M/s Bhavani Enterprises & others Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Zone III218 NEAR BINNY MILL, BANGALORE-23. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE CO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant115; AIR1954Mys115; (1955)33MysLJ42
1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The defendant is the son of one Dodda Thimmian who was a member of Hindu Joint family with him and who is now dead. During his lifetime, he had sold to the plaintiff a small piece of land measuring about an acre described in the A schedule to the plaint (which will be referred to hereafter as the suit land) and had put him in possession. After his death the defendant and another younger brother of his, who is also now dead, tried to disturb the plaintiff's possession and he therefore brought a suit in O.S. No. 3 of 42-43 on the file of the Munsif, Tumkur, against them for a permanent injunction. It was held in that suit that the plaintiff was entitled to retain possession of the suit land and that Dodda Thimmiah's sons might get their shares divided arid separated by a suit of their own for partition if the alienation by their father was found not binding on them. Accordingly they filed a suit O.S. No. 208/44-45 against the plaintiff for pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant106; AIR1953Mys106
ORDER1. On an application I. A. No. VII filed by the defendant under Rule 20 of the Rules under the Legal Practitioners Act in Original Suit No. 8 of 1950-51 of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chitaldroog, the sum of Rs. 25/- mentioned in the decree as being payable to defendant towards lawyer's fee is ordered to be amended by raising it to the ad valorem fee on Rs. 4500/-. It is conceded that there is no variance between the judgment and the decree that Rs. 25/- was definitely fixed as Advocate's lee in the judgment by the predecessor of the Judge who has now made the order. The provision of law under which the application is filed cannot justify the amendment as it only refers to the mode in which the fee has to be assessed ordinarily, without affecting the power of the court to disallow or reduce the amount if it thinks fit. This as well as the conditions under which the decree once drawn up may be altered or amended are to be gathered from the provisions of the Code of Civil Pr...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1969(2)LC570(SC)
Grover, J.1. These appeals from a common judgment of the Gujrat High Court arise out of proceedings relating to acquisition of land situate in three villages Achar, Ranip and Kali, the notification Under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter called the Act having been issued on July 14, 1954.2. We shall first deal with the group of Civil AppealsNos. 1030,1031/66 and 1092/69 out of which the first two are by special leave and the third by certificate. The first appeal arises outof compensation case No. 53/56. The award which was made bythe Land Acquisition Officer comprises two categories of lands (i) 25building plots in survey No. 127; the total area being 2720 sq.ydsand (ii) road plot, the being 8170 sq yds. The Land AcquisitionOfficer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. yd, inrespect of the building plots and Rs. 1/- per sq. yd. for the roadplot. The district Judge to whom the matter was taken by meansof reference confirmed the award of the Land Acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2657; (2009)24VST250(Karn); 2009(3)KCCRSN123; 2009(6)AIRKarR141
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all traders who have transactions in the nature of sale of goods. Petitioners are all registered dealers under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short 'the Act'], within the definition of a 'registered dealer' as it occurs in Sub-section 27 of Section 2 of the Act.2. While most of the writ petitioners are all registered dealers who have transactions in the nature of works contract, which is one of executing different types of works in favour of customers in terms of the agreement between the petitioners and their customers and at a price agreed upon, some are hoteliers and some are stone crushers.3. Significance of works contract under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is that the value of the goods in execution of such works, which becomes properties of the clients for whom the dealers are executing the work contract, which is a transaction in the nature of sale in respect of goods, attracts liability f...
Tag this Judgment!