M/s Goutham Traders, 4th Main, Opp. HMT Layout, Ganganagar, Bangalore v. The Deputy Commisioner c>f
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 226, 265
Judgment
rep.by its Proprietor Sri Gopal, -2— akreshwari Enterprises, Cmrajpet, Chickball apur, IColar District. rep.by its proprietor Sri C.K.Madhu.
M/s Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises, Wholesale Liquor Dealers, Mulabagilu, IColar District, rep.by its Partner Sri Venkatarama Gowda. 6 M/s Kanthi Wines, Bangalore-Bangarpet Road, Kolar. rep.by its partner Sri. Raghukumar,
M/s ree Vinaya3ca Enterprises, Wholesale Liquor Dealers, Chelur Road, Chintamani, Kolar District. rep, by its Proprietor Sri M.Narayanappa. —3— 8, M/s R.M,Agencjes, Wholes4e Liquor Dealer, !C,G,F,Road, Deshaalli, Bangalore Taluk, rep, by its Proprietor Srj R,Mattj,
O,M,Ashoka Babu, Wolesale Liquor Dealer, 4. R, Extension, Chjntamanj, Kolar District, 10, M/s Venkatesh Heballi, WholesaLe Wine Dealer, Kolar—Turnkur Road, Dodd abal lapur, Kolar District, rep, by Ls Partner Sri Ash, •.,Petitjoners, (By Sri E,R,tndra)cumar, Adv,) AND: 1, The Dpputy Corn nissioner Coimnercj al Taxes, Assessments, Bangalore Division, , .4 —4— Connercial Taxes Buildings, Seshadripuram, Banga.lore.
The State of Karnataka0 by its Secretary, Department of finance, Government of Karnataka, Vi dhanasoudha, Bangalore—1. (By mt. S.Sujatha, HCGP) BETWEEN: 11, P.Ravindra Reddy, Wholesale Liquor Dealer, Ganganagar, Bang alore.
M/s Goutham Traders, 4th Main, Opp. HMT Layout, Ganganagar, Bangalore. . . .Respondents. (The respondents are common in above Rep.by its Prpprietri Smt, V.Radhamma. •.petitioners. (By Sri E.R.Indra Kumar, Mv.) —5— 1, The Deputy Commissioner of Commercj Taxes, Assessments_tti Commerciaj Taxes BUildings Qandhinagar
2. The State of Karnataja, by its Secretary Deparnent of Finance, Goverent of I(arnatka Vjdha Soudha, Bangal ore • 1 (By Smt. S.Sujatha, HCGP) EN:
N/s J.S.S.Enterpj35 Wflolesaje Liquor Dealers, Subramanyagara Main Road, Raj aj i Wagar, Baigajo . . Respondents (The respondents are Common in above W,Ps) rep.by its Proprjetrjx Smt. Puteathy,a •. .Petjtjofler (B$ Sri . R. Indra Kwnar , Adv.) . .6 —6— AND:
The Deputy Commisioner c>f Connercia1 Taxes, Assessments—tv, COrivercial Taxes Buildings, Gandhinagar, Bangalore—9. 2 • State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Karnataka, Vjdhana Soudha, Bangalore—1. (By Smt.S.Sujatha, HCGP) BLJ_J.
Sree S.L.N,Wines, Wholesale Liquor Dealers, Bangalore-Bangarpet Road, Kol ar. .• .Respondents. rep.by its Proprietrix Smt. N,Uma. •.4etitioner. (By Sri E.Y.Indra Kumar, Adv.) —7- AND:
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, KOlar. 2 • State of Karnatka, By its Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Karnataka, Vjdhaaa Soudha, Bangalore—1. (By Smt. S,Sujatha, I4CGP) BETWEEN:
V.N.Nagaraj, Wholesale Liquor Dealer, 5th Cross, II Stage, 3. P.Nagar, Bangalore. (By Sri E.R.tndra Kumar, Mv.) AND:
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 33rd Circle, .. .Respondents. . . Petitioner. —8— Commercial Taxes Buildings, Gandh in agar, Baagalore.
2. State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Karnatak, Vjdhana Soudha, Bangalore—1. (By Smt. S.Sujatha, HCGP) . . Respondents. writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with an affidavit praying t declare and strike down the Explanation as inserted with retrospective effect to the proviso to section 5(1—A) of the KST Act, 1957, by the Karntaka Act No.1 of 1996 as violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India tc., Writ Petitions are coming on for Further the Court made the following: Orders this day, ORDER It is pointed out that the validity of proviso to Section s(I(A) is pending before the Division Bench —9— Bench for consideration in the case of “M/S AMARAVATHI WINES Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (W.A. Ns. 1951 & 52/1997, date of Disposal 1.9.97) Wherein the demand has also been stayed for the period up to 5.3.96. This petition is disposed of with the direction that whatever decision will be rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Amaravathi Wines’ Case would be applicable to the Petitioner and the question of recovery proceedings as directed by the Division Bench would also continue in this case. HIC : Sd/-JUDGE. rar, *
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 226, 265.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 02 Jun 1998.
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.