SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Kar) 132

K.J.SHETTY, S.R.RAJASEKHARA MURTHY
S. N. GONDAKAR – Appellant
Versus
COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES – Respondent


Advocates:
E.R.INDRA KUMAR, S.RAJENDRA BABU

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Sec. 23 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act) raises a narrow but not very easy point. The question raised for our consideration is whether the pickle jar or otherwise commonly called "bharani" falls under Entry 112 or entry 118 of the Second Schedule to the Act. For immediate reference we set out those two Entries below :"112. Chinaware, Porcelain ware and Stoneware other than those falling under any other entry eight per cent 118. Containers other than gunnies. Four per cent. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a dealer registered under thq provisions of the karnataka Sales Tax Act For the assessment year 1975-76 the petitinoer submitted the return of turnover declaring taxable turnover at Rs. 23,758-88 out of which the turnover of Rs. 19,938-68 pertains to sales of pickle jars. It was contended before the assessing authority that that turnover should be brought to tax at the rate of 4% under Entry 118. But the assesssing authority did not accept thalt contention. That turnover was taxed at 8% treating the pickle jars as Chinaware or Porcelainware under Entry 112. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Assistant Com












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top