High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Ksiidc Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of … on 25 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Ksiidc Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of … on 25 August, 2010
Author: V.G.Sabhahit And B.V.Pinto
mm was mmzr or mmmmar     L
mm» rm ms 25:: my 0i'é"At:urtActpra.ymgto aansidetbe order pa.uadin'Wi-52!:
" » .'  1¢o.46088[ 2004 at. o5.as.2oc:5 and ate.

Thiaappealoomingmforhearingima daynaabhahit
J.,dd3:nru'adtl1am11%



EL

appanl filer! by the unnuccassfnl writ. 
Paifioxt Ho.46088] 2004 hang  

03.38.2005

, whfifi the leurnqé. __8hs1 a Judga *’

the ciaim mains the the
r4an1:u:1dmt~fitat.o for 1: égjaaiztenaea
by the writ pafifiaeaer was
mypathecaaaa Section 29,

have priority my examine of
it: char’ ;,’§e_ov¢:’. ‘V th§Vpr1ori¥’y” the ranpondcmi; for ecllwfitm of

AA -hung a State in mtitlad to
its czhfi for coflaacflan of straw: of tax

and if ammmt ran.a%s and

‘ti1«;a’eu1£§-.I:&;17hxet~3:in¢ of choxgo by 1:11? wait patitioumew wrmld
V K % ._ §ina1o Juggaumm hearing the conttantion
” the: deaflmmad counnai_ for the pmtim held that the

akghapeufiam thatfiia entitled to prlariztyfiat

a;Ica*m’ain.g_fis chirp was the* 2-eapimdent fax collmting the

\p,f> .

tun: due cannot be emcaptod as the aims is

fiat p-im-fly few rmrvaring the at

pant’ is no more re: htagrn ya it

Suprane Couxtinthc cueafC:fi’I’l”” ‘ K ” ‘

mam <3:-* mmm & in'["2'€¢99).~ #1 vs':

ms thsttthe utmziseim

' ahargofiar reeovm-1 'a£o.z'raars: ,. the ordu

paused by that be said to he
to call for mm.-ta-me
in this mm is dimima.

Sd/-

Judge

Sd/-

Judge

Q