IN KARNATAKA man COURT CERCUET BENCH, AT GUL3?§$§§C%Z§vv..
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 __ "
Before?
THE HOIWBLE MR.JUS'I'§CE L NARAYAi$;:A"'s\?;*.£g:xziY-.. ' 1'
W P 1'-io.4439V8}'2f()O2(S}_v' "
Between: 2 'V V
Sri C G Amati,
S] 0 Late Gangappa,
Aged abcmt 58 years,
C/0 Gurtmathappa Koiiur,
Residing at H No.8--(§i--'1T3_9Z;* _ :_ 1.
.3 P Nagar, (Near Watcgr 'é'€_'a_L111c}v, 4' _
Janawada Road, 5 _ ' V V" .
Bidar 585 40;" 9:; 3 % ~ Petitioner
(By Sri 'I3 '~~..-fi}&é*éocate)
And: 4' V A V' v
3;; "~v.AKarfnEa1ta,i{a Agro
, Industries Cfnxtporation Limited,
_ A 4i'11g:(}:.jporat4:-é under the
H ' $1 956,
Havifig its iégiétered office at
_ i~ie¥5'ba1,».fBa;:xga1<)re
44 Represeafed by its
' Managiiig Director.
Director,
' Karnataka Stair: Agra
' ....£-:1dusa'ies Corporatien Limited,
Hebbal,
Bangalore 560 G274, Resyonéents
{By} S3512 S S Sajjan Shetty --- Advocate)
"x
Writ Patition is filed under Article 226 of the _0f
india, praying to quash the ShOW cause nofice..~«~~is§11¢{{ .533'
respondent No.2 dated 3/ 10 2002 ¥:)earin_g? Aré'fr§1':~:r;§;€:«;~
No.36?/£1/1 1377 2002 which is A1:u1exurc~A.
This writ petition coming on for 'today, Court made the follawiilgi ' ' ORE§Rgz
Neither parties nor their coizxzficéi present
befsrc the Court when they c;i;£13.§ét15’L~v..J’.A:F§:bnce this Court: is
constrained to pass oxdgr “fiéconls.
2. It the –;§é’tiflo’ner that he was an emgloyee
Working as Méfignget £5? No.1 establishment. He was
jsgued 3. Shaw’ czétizvse fiofice 013 3/10/2802 as to why action
Sho1i1(iv.,1§.ot_ “i’é,¢ -‘fiélkflfl against him for recovery of amount of
It is afieged that when the petitioner
gvzls wofk;ing–._V:aS’5:{ Manager he failed to bring the inegularities and
of VC<}rporation tax to tha exienf of 123.4 lakhs and add
c41'ft*.11_"r"*.§'~i%ie pariod {mm 1993193 to July, 2002 which is a
T Ijiiiscsnéuct.
3%
3. It is the case of the patitioiler that he has I101:
any ilicgalities as reflecteé in the Show cause notic–~:}:” ”
cause: notice was received by him on 8&>}’»1.0&/ h<§.'_j11ei:.-; u
submitted hés explanation within the
30/10/2082. In response 11:; théT._Vfc};ly, A3':1o '*;1;:_§2:vc: 'been'~
gasseé. However, his retmzment }'.1.t':v1:'A.i€fit'.'3_v }1a{}e" ' hgclgfiwithheid
Without there being any enqui'i3r:;«' j – "
4. It is well establishecl notice cannot
be chaflengcjflm is in the form of finai
orfierr. If the v s’1t2.§V,;s\é«:r éaufiffé the farm final {)I’dl’:I” adverse to
the iIltf3I’€§lT._€3f _:petit:io:A1E;r V«1%% 1Vlt}1@12t foiiowing the principics of
gigmya; t11§123 vb?fit”}5etiti0n can be maintained against the
s11{;’~’z.’~;«f%_'<;%1:-;j¢1T;_1us':"~: page 2 9am I, it is stated that petitioner is
f:,13.':j;: mspénsibié -f2_:1*' the said omissicsn, Hence he was given the
_ .13,.Qtir:_e undervcizaliengc 1:0 Show cause Vifithifil seven days as to why
:%§13′ that he has mpljcé the said Show cause notice on
V
1:80] 10/ 2%? itself. 81,21″: so far mt) actien has been taken by the
9*?
raspanciexats. In the ciztnmstances, the impugned_–*3héix¥’–. A ~
notice carmet be sustained.
In tlw result, Writ pefition is eillexfved. ” ‘”-Efflrz $i1ci§é ¢;a=:3.s::VVx:€)ti¢c. *
Clatsé 3/ 10 / 2002 is hcrzitby qua$hed. 1;3;}.3(1%’.3..§:i’!C’3:$”E).’111t1I€if;
akqs.