Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-11-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2132; 1985(2)KarLJ172
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Whether the suo moto revisional power conferred by Section 22-A(1) of theKarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') has been exercised or initiated within a period of four years from the date of the order or not as required by Section 22-A(2) of the Act and therefore barred by time or not is the short and interesting question that arises for determination in these cases. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981 in some detail as illustrative only and the other cases in general.2-1. WRIT PETITION NO. 16098 OF 1981 : For the assessment years 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to Rs 12,69,286-25 and Rs. 29,93,521-26 was brought to tax under the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi ('CTO') in hisassessment orders made on 29-9-1973 and 30-4-1974. Against the said orders of the CTO, the petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-11-1985
Reported in : [1986]62STC102(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Whether the suo motu revisional power conferred by section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') has been exercised or initiated within a period of four years from the date of the order or not as required by section 22-A(2) of the Act and therefore barred by time or not is the short and interesting question that arises for determination in these cases. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981 in some details as illustrative only and the other cases in general. 2-1. Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981. - For the assessment year 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 12,69,286.25 and Rs. 29,93,521.26 was brought to tax under the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi 'CTO', in his assessment orders made on 29th September, 1973, and 30th April, 1974. Against the said orders of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-09-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2451; [1985]60STC361(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these two petitions the petitioner is the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., Belgaum, a public limited company. The petitioner is a manufacturer of aluminium and its alloys in all forms, ingots, aluminium billets and other by-products. 2. The petitioner-company is a registered dealer both under the KST and CST Acts. For the period 1st April, 1973 to 31st March, 1974 the petitioner's turnover was subjected to tax under the KST and CST Acts by assessment order dated 21st July, 1975 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Dharwar. 3. The petitioner assesses returned a gross turnover of Rs. 12,93,87,969.09 for the period in question. In the assessment completed under the KST Act, the sales effected within the State were subjected to tax at the rate of 6 per cent. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of its inter-State sales of the aggregate value of Rs. 1,03,28,598.74. The assessing officer, on scrutiny of the documents produced by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-07-1985
Reported in : 1986(10)ECC17; 1985(5)LC2013(Karnataka); 1985(21)ELT655(Kar); [1987]165ITR342(KAR); [1987]165ITR342(Karn)
1. As the questions that arise for determination in these appeals between the same parties are interconnected, we propose to dispose of them by a common judgment. 2. M/s I. T. C. Ltd., a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, which is respondent-1 before us, petitioner No. 1 in W.P. Nos. 11792 of 1978 and 2413 of 1978 out of which these appeals arise and will be hereafter referred to as the respondent. The respondent is inter alia engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and tobacco products in its five factories situated in different parts of the country, one of which is situated in the City of Bangalore, with which factory products only we are concerned in these appeals. As manufacturer of cigarettes and tobacco products, the respondent is exigible to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) and the Rules made thereunder ('the Act'and 'the Rules'). 3. For the periods from (1) 17-2-1972 to 31-1-1972, (2) 16-2-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-29-1985
Reported in : AIR1988Kant293; ILR1987KAR3615
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. W.P. N9. 12587/85 is by Bharatiya Veterinary Educational Society and three others (all of them are collectively referred hereinafter as 'the society' or as society and its co petitioners). W.P. Nos. 14696 and 18238/1985 are by 102 petitioners, who are referred as the 'students'. The first two respondents are common in these writ petitions. In the writ petitions filed by the students, the society is imp leaded as the 3rd respondent and the College in question is the 4th respondent..2. The society seeks the quashing of S. 6A of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (a State enactment - referred hereinafter as the Act'), by declaring the said section as unconstitutional. In the writ petitions filed- by the students, they seek a direction to the State Government to initiate an appropriate action against the society and the college., by invoking S. 27-A of the 'Karnataka Societies Registration Act, in the light of S. 6-A of the Act. They also seek provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-26-1985
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2364
ORDERBopanna, J.1. This Petition is filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') having its Branch Office at J.C.Road, Bangalore, under the provisions of Section 439(i)(b) read with Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act 1956 (in short 'the Act') praying for the winding up of the respondent company Hegde & Golay Limited (in short 'HGL') and for other incidental reliefs.1.1 HGL was incorporated on 2/7/1965 under the Act initially as a Private Limited Company, limited by shares. It became a public Limited Company with effect from 27/6/ 1974 by virtue, of the provisions of Section 43A of the Act. Its nominal capital is Rs 50 lakhs divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs 100/-each. The issued and paid-up capital or credited as paid-up is Rs 50 lakhs. HGL, among other things, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various types of horological instruments both electronic and mechanical, printed circuits, their accessories and parts.2. It is the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-30-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR955; [1985]152ITR618(KAR); [1985]152ITR618(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy j.), this case has been posted before us for disposal. 2. One Y. D. Nanje Gowda of Belur down, Hassan District, who is the petitioner before us, is the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF') consisting of himself, his wife and several other members and is an assessee under the W.T. Act of 1957 (Central Act No. 27 of 1957) ('the Act'), on the file of the First Wealth-tax Officer, Hassan ('WTO'). The wife of the petitioner had her own yet wealth exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 during the relevant assessment year. 3. For the assessment year 1977-78, the petitioner in the status of an HUF filed a return under the Act before the WTO, who by his order dated September 20, 1977, (exhibit-A) completed the assessment as on March 31, 1977, at Rs. 5,83,100 and levied tax at the rates chargeable thereto under the Act. On the determination of net wealth made by the WTO, the petitioner is not aggrieved. But, he is only aggrieved by the higher ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-20-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR713; 1986(2)KarLJ242; [1986]62STC238(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases have been posted before a Division Bench for disposal. 2. As the questions that arise for determination are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions urged, it is useful to notice the facts in Writ Petition No. 27805 of 1982 in some detail as illustrative only. 4. M/s. Sterling Foods, Mangalore, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27805 of 1982, a partnership firm of partners, which is engaged in dealing in prawns and other sea-food products, is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) ('the KST and CST Acts') on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Mangalore (ACCT). 5. The petitioner purchases shrimps, prawns and lobsters locally and they are then cleaned, peeled, processed, frozen and packed in cartons w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-01-1985
Reported in : (1985)45CTR(Kar)68; [1985]155ITR681(KAR); [1985]155ITR681(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, under s. 256(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961, referred as many as nine questions, all relating to the question of capital gains which accrued or arose to the assessee as a result of payment of compensation of Rs. 3.6 crores by the Government of India for having taken over the assessee's business undertaking. 2. The assessee is a public limited company under the name 'Syndicate Bank Ltd.'. It was carrying on banking business with its head office at Manipal. The business undertaking of this company along with 13 other like undertakings were first nationalised by the Government of India by promulgating an Ordinance called 'the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance (8 of 1969)'. The validity of that Ordinance was challenged before the Supreme Court, and when it was pending consideration, the Ordinance was replaced by an Act called 'The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act (22...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-16-1985
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!