Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 366 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 366 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - TMI - Demand of purchase tax - Section 14 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Held that:- The impugned order dated 18/04/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.10618/2011 & 11656-662/2011, Assessment order dated 30.10.2010 as per Annexure-L, demand notice dated 2.11.2010 vi de Annexure-K and the attachment orders dated 10.1.2011 as per Annexures-A to C under Section 1 4 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, issued by the respondent No.5/appellant No.5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o:p> J U D G M E N T: Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 5/appellant Nos. 1 to 3 herein, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 18/04/2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.10618/2011 & 11656-662/2011, have presented these appeals. 2. Petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has filed writ petitions praying to declare that he is not liable to pay to the respondent No.5/appellant No.3 the purchase tax amount demanded vide notice dated 2.11.2010 as pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

payable by him. 3. It is the case of the petitioner/respondent No .1 herein before the learned Single Judge that, as p er the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Government, being the highest bidder, petitioner has taken the Co-operative Sugar Factory on lease that is run by respondent No.3 therein. It is also stated, the factory was running in a bad shape and in the course of transaction, petitioner also sought for annulment of the lease on payment of ₹ 500.3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

25B of the Karnataka Sales tax Act holding that petitioner/respondent No.1 is liable to pay purchase tax of ₹ 99,74,357/- for the year ended on 31.3.2009. But according to him, the amount of ₹ 469.82 lakhs included purchase tax and the said fact has been intimated to the respondent No.3. During November, 2010, respondent No.5/appellant No.3 has issued a notice to the respondent No.1/petitioner demanding payment of ₹ 59,43,967/- towards purchase tax after deducting the amount a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o:p> 4. The said petitions had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 18th April 2011. The learned Single Judge, has allowed the said petitions by exonerating the petitioner/respondent No.1 from the clutches of respondent No.5/appellant No.3 towards tax arrears for the present and the assessment order as well as the demand notices issued against petitioner/respondent No.1 are quashed and absolved the liability of he petitioner/respondent No.1 in view of the admission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

DSK:FIN;21:2005-06 issued by the Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar. Bangalore and if the said communication has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, he ought not to have allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner, set aside the assessment order and demand notices by exonerating him. Therefore, they fairly submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the assessment order passed by the Assessing authority and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version