High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Electrix India Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Electrix India Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Kumar
..-mu. an-was: Imwnwuma Vuvia l"ll\l11"'lil§.!\?I I"lI\3r'     

IN THE awn coax? or xaauamxa AT 

mawaa vars THE 330 may 0? nscauasa zeesff .» * "u

9 R E s E N T »w~--

was HON'BLE HR.JH5TICE x.L.fiaNéfiNATfi* .:  ~ *' A

Arm V
was HON'B-LS MR. auswrem 2_;s§i;2'x_r.'-Q  

C.R.P.R0.29l"OF--2GG8'* «AV_
sTR2_No.45w@E22u9&_'
sway 30.4? as 20ng_*'*~=

aswwsmu: _ .... __ =" 

H/3. Elactrix 1ndi:»a:d.,"; ~.'
21-01 MII Phase, Peefly§,'wh".
Industrial Axea,*Ban§ai9ra;2
Raptd. by fiaruthi Pei;   **
Maaager, Eindu, Kajgg.
.=-A .j*.:_ . '~-~* ---------- PETITIQHER
fifisnuruzsn}

{fly $z$;$§$éfyafiarayana, Advaaata)

"* Ann: .

4 f"gSTATE eF_fiAnxA?AxA,
* ax ¢OMISSZONER 09

  éomggczan mxss, aaxsanoas.

m RESPQHDENT
{Camr:a:::n)
These petiticns tileé ufS.23{3) at the KB?
Act against the judgment and oréer éatad
23.5.2668

passed ia STA Ko.138fB4, 136304 and
13?!G4 an the file af the Karnataka Appellata

–..-.—-. -.—-v.—-ww =– -.- -my-.~ -ur~r—- III ‘arr I\r!lIIlIl’\Il’I!\l”I’ ‘!”lf\’l1 I”

Joint Comznissitrner cf Commercial Taxes (AppezaT’i”ss}j

who by ardax: dated 28.13.2603 canfirmad

fix.’

paased by the A$$a55§¥”%§’ Officer. Subse§§::jue.r:T1:’;{3;3′,’?§A%’
the asfiessae filed apgeals bev.fo3:*e.éth’§a

Appzellate Tribunal. By a “o$¢ig;ga

23.5.2608, the Tribunal dié:giis;Vsed ‘tI§:e.a;§§§§§j;:5–~.a;{<:§

confirmed the erdars the _a_L::ift!z_or§tié.'s"


3. The asses.-see   'this Court
challangiztfl    Karnataka
Appellate    by

iavcking__. ju:.Av’cViV;s§i<:tirx of this
Gcsurt. :*”f’._’l’1:f.–s’ adfnitted the reviaian

petitians A * 22′;’3…’24V3G–$: cmared far pasting

this p;;jev.’riLsria:§ “;.~..e_’f;:;ii:§ic$’:a, alcmg with snap 45 and

‘ ._s¥z*’a2 §? :é’n~:z_;_s. In mm 45 and may 4′? of 2093

Er:-éxvf.T’~. 7sz.:.*::st.az2tial questian sf law’ hag

beer: :em¢;am on azmzase fer

,.f’_fj;-w_§::ansi§e.zi’&?;ii.<:n, which reads: as urgdarz

" I-mama: aha azxtlsaritiu 1mtz1d gat
jurisdiction to pass an cram: levying
penalty wan thmug the mates: in

pandiag hetero the 33233 *3"

*-“WW Wwww-“ff—f.w9>v wt’ nnnumannu fuwr-3′ uvvsu Ui””!§.’MKfiR£Rli.fl’ Ki($l”!’V£.JUUK’i”0F”KARflATAKA’ HIQH flW$,§R”¥’ GP K&KW.flLTflKA HEGHCC

19. In View of this factual finding arrived a§W “?7a
by us, we do not prapasa to answer the quastiafi§ ;

at law framed ahave and accordingly th¢»samé’§$x] x

not answered by us.

11. These ravision petiticfis “are V§i1bw§dx*

subject to the ¢hservation§*nmda”§b§#é;xPaxtiés”

ta bear their respective c6st$;f’ .5:

sri. vedamuxthy}4§a@rn£d€;5§§£nm§§twé1aadar

is permitted to £i;§fifi3md*a£ §§fi§arafi;é within a

perififl at six #éafi§;~ all “” Vw”

sa/–

IUDGE

J 33/…

JUDGE