Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Vinayaka Bhat vs State, By Assistant Regional Transport ... on 24 September, 1992

Ganapati Gopal Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 1998

In this regard, he also refers to a decision of this Court in Vinayaka Bhat v State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer. The said decision dealt with a vehicle that had been scrapped and not in existence. The existence of a motor vehicle was thus found to be a condition precedent for levy of tax under the Act. The said decision is inapplicable to the facts of these cases for the reason that it is nobody's case that the vehicle concerned herein is not in existence. On the other hand, the very defence taken is that the vehicle is very much in existence, but that it is left in garage.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 24 - G P Goud - Full Document

M/S Icici Bank Limited vs The Joint Commissioner For on 22 March, 2018

12. This Court in the case of VINAYAKA BHAT supra, has observed that existence of a motor vehicle is a condition precedent for levy of tax under the Act. This Judgment was rendered in the context of the arguments advanced by the petitioner therein that vehicle was very old and it was scrapped, not in existence. The obligation of the petitioner to intimate that the vehicle has been scrapped under Section 34[1] of the MV Act was not complied with. Placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1807/1966, it was held that though there is an obligation on the petitioner to intimate that the vehicle has been scrapped under Section 34[1] of the MV Act, but, that requirement is not relevant for the purpose of levy of tax under the Taxation Act. The respondent has to enquire
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Sujatha - Full Document

M/S Shree Vinayak Infratech Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025

i) Vinayaka Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer [ILR 1993 KAR 176] "All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Sorab, in C.C.Nos.993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89 respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Shree Vinayak Infratech Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025

i) Vinayaka Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer [ILR 1993 KAR 176] "All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Sorab, in C.C.Nos.993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89 respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S.Shree Vinayak Infratech Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025

i) Vinayaka Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer [ILR 1993 KAR 176] "All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Sorab, in C.C.Nos.993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89 respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Shree Vinayak Infratech Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025

i) Vinayaka Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer [ILR 1993 KAR 176] "All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Sorab, in C.C.Nos.993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89 respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Shree Vinayak Infratech Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025

i) Vinayaka Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer [ILR 1993 KAR 176] "All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Sorab, in C.C.Nos.993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89 respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S Shree Vinayak Infratech Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025

i) Vinayaka Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer [ILR 1993 KAR 176] "All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Sorab, in C.C.Nos.993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89 respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Mr K Umesh on 27 October, 2021

10. In the case on hand, as admitted by PW.1, he has not enquired as to whether the vehicle was in a working condition or not or whether the accused was in possession or control of the vehicle during the relevant period. The learned Sessions Judge has taken note of the law laid down in the case of Vinayak Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport Officer reported in ILR 1993 KAR.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Nawaz - Full Document
1