SENIOR MANAGER LEGAL v. BANGALORE – 560 047
Case at a glance
- Bench
- H G RAMESH
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(G), 226, 265, 276(2)
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NOS.38075/2011 & 42212-214/2011 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD. MARUTHI INFO TECH CENTRE GROUND FLOOR, B BLOCK 11/1, 12/1, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT BANGALORE-71 REPRESENTED BY VIVEKANANDAN C SENIOR MANAGER LEGAL … PETITIONER (BY SRI. G SHIVADASS, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 009 - 2 - W.P.Nos.38075 & 42212-214/2011 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ENFORCEMENT-1 KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 047 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 2 (H) OF THE KARNATAKA TAX ON PROFESSIONS, TRADES, CALLINGS AND EMPLOYMENTS ACT, 1976 IS ULTRA VIRES THE ARTICLE 276(2), 265, 14 AND 19(1) (G) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has filed a memo in Court today seeking leave to withdraw the impugned proposition notice dated 08.07.2011 (Annexure-A) with liberty to respondent no.3 to issue a fresh proposition notice in accordance with law after verification of certain relevant facts. Leave as sought for is granted. - 3 - W.P.Nos.38075 & 42212-214/2011 In view of this, the writ petitions have become infructuous and they are accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. Petitions dismissed. hkh. Sd/- JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.