Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Lakshmi Bar And Restaurant vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2017

M/S Dhanalakshmi Bar And Restaurant vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2017

52. The Writ petitions are accordingly allowed and quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Respondents- Authorities of the Department, the matters are remanded back to the concerned authorities for re-computing the arrears of tax, interest and penalty, in the manner indicated above in this Date of Order 17-11-2017 W.P.No.38214/2017 M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bar and Restaurant Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

M/S Kailash Bar And Restaurant vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2018

4. The writ petitions are therefore allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgments of this Court and the impugned orders Annexures-K and L both dated 20.07.2017 are set aside and the concerned authority is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law laid down in the Date of Order 24-09-2018 W.P.Nos.10549-550/2018 M/s. Kailash Bar & Restaurant Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sangeetha Bar & Restaurant vs State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2021

19. Learned Senior counsel for KSBCL is also correct in his submission that the claim of the petitioners that the Notification dated 21.04.2014 does not confer exemption on respondent No.5 is plainly erroneous and misconstrued and liable to be rejected, especially when a plain reading of the said Notification clearly indicates that KSBCL which holds CL-11 License is not subjected to VAT under the said Notification dated 21.04.2014. The exemption available to KSBCL is also confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in M/s Balaji Bar and 27 Restaurant's case and M/s Giri Bar and Restaurant's case(supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M/S High Point Hotels Pvt Ltd vs The Excise Commissioner In Karnataka on 18 August, 2017

27. This Court is further of the view that the said fiscal liability in the name of Penalty under Rule 14 (2) of the Excise Rules of 1968 is actually the price or the liquidated damages to be paid by the Excise Licencees or vendors of liquor for the breach of contract on their part for short-lifting of the prescribed quantity of liquor from the State Beverage Corporation. That is why there is no need to go into the question of mens rea or opportunity of hearing or raising an objection in that regard was considered appropriate in the aforesaid case in Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant case (supra), decided by this Court on 27/06/2017 and the requirement of giving such opportunity wherein Rule 14(2) was restricted in the case where the licence itself was sought to be cancelled for the said reason of short-lifting of the liquor.
Karnataka High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 19 - V Kothari - Full Document

Mrs Yashodha S Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2017

"27. This Court is further of the view that the said fiscal liability in the name of Penalty under Rule 14 (2) of the Excise Rules of 1968 is actually the price or the liquidated damages to be paid by the Excise Licencees or vendors of liquor for the breach of contract on their part for short-lifting of the prescribed quantity of liquor from the State Beverage Corporation. That is why there is no need to go into the question of mens rea or opportunity of hearing or raising an objection in that regard was considered appropriate in the aforesaid case in Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, decided by this Court on 27/06/2017 and the requirement of giving such opportunity wherein Rule 14(2) was restricted in the case where the licence itself was sought to be cancelled for the said reason of short-lifting of the liquor.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

M/S. Greenway Hotel Private Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2017

"27. This Court is further of the view that the said fiscal liability in the name of Penalty under Rule 14 (2) of the Excise Rules of 1968 is actually the price or the liquidated damages to be paid by the Excise Licencees or vendors of liquor for the breach of contract on their part for short-lifting of the prescribed quantity of liquor from the State Beverage Corporation. That is why there is no need to go into the question of mens rea or opportunity of hearing or raising an objection in that regard was considered appropriate in the aforesaid case in Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, decided by this Court on 27/06/2017 and the requirement of giving such opportunity wherein Rule 14(2) was restricted in the case where the Date of order :13.10.2017 in W.P. No.30353/2017 M/s.Greenway Hotel Private Limited vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 4/5 licence itself was sought to be cancelled for the said reason of short-lifting of the liquor.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document
1