Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)

B. Basavalingappa And Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 11 January, 1985

Therein this Court accepted the above enunciation of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court and rejected its claim for non-payment of taxes and that decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court since [Bagalkot Cement Co. Ltd. v. State of Mysore [1976] 37 (SC)]. In affirming the decision of this Court, the Supreme Court expressly approved the above statement of law made by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court. From this what emerges is that a commission agent engages himself in sale or purchase, buying or selling or in the taxable event contemplated in entry No. 54 and therefore, the State Legislature was undoubtedly competent to legislate section 11 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Karnataka Pawn Brokers' Association vs State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 1992

To the same effect are the Decisions in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES , THE DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES, NORTHERN RAILWAY, JODHPUR v. THE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXATION OFFICER AND ANR 37 STC 423, BAGALKOT CEMENT CO. v. STATE OF MYSORE 37 STC 73 and in BRAEMORE ESTATES LTD. v STATE OF KERALA 78 STC 263 @ 266. However, it is contended that if the pawn broker is considered as a dealer, Section 11 of the Act will be rendered meaningless. We now, advert to Section 11 of the Act, which reads thus:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1