High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Markandeshwar Glass Centre vs State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Markandeshwar Glass Centre vs State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN Ti»~§E HIGH coum" or KARNATAKAr~ L

CIRCUIT' sews:-1 AT DHARWAD  j    " 

aA'rEr> THIS THE 3*" oxw OF MAs2c§i;2oé§  3 4 %  

BEFGRE

me Hom3LE MR.JusTIc*ér.4:;3HA;x: SH$N;fAAfSJjAv€v£3i3$AR*~V: %

wrm £>§TITIO¥',~.§ Nos,31éz;3--%3.1_85oX2a98(%..nr;§3

EETWEEN:

M] 3. £a.arkandc$i1%.va1"  ' = V . 
P.lE3.Road_.~   'V ' ,   .
Ranebemizur . '

Hav€ri_I:§ist~.   V.,__ V , " V

Rep.?;>y its l3?:--:;jrt;x1c«:ff "  _ 
Gad3.:ges_happ.::1A.g8;Ciifv._  - . ..PE§'1'I'I'IGNER

{By S1*i'E_. f.So1':mAé"iZ;fiVi, 

AN§_:.;»

.  ¢   :jVfA.I{aI'I:al€.§}§s$1

" » 'VH3: its Priiztzjipai Secretary

 _ ;_",3¢§§:<1f11::..:)f Finance:

 C30'€?$ff1:l11€;tifQf Karnataka

"  Vi(ii"3.:a3:1"a, Soudha

"'E%a::3.gaia;$ra«~ 1

V n  Agéistant Commissioner sf

Rflommcrcial Taxes



LVO-350,  
Ranebennur .. RESPQNBENTS  

(By Sri E<i.B.z'-idhyapak, AGA)

These writ patitions are  fi;:r;d:'e:1:" A_1'*fi'-:,:"1'<::'s'VV
227 of the Constitutimrx of E]3(iiE:2_, p;*aying_j1;m:;z:.ai_ssioxié;r.,¢ bf itommcrcial
Taxes, 1370-360, Ran:%bennu:¢;'i:1VLthe"-petitio11é:r's~c:ase for the
months ofJu1y 2005 .t{)'«.Z'~E0'.iie3;13vé:°.._i2.Q{)5 and January 2006
to March 2096 (AnIze:Cuirt:::=~}'§ i'Q= H)Vanda1so to quash the
consequential demand H f1Qtic£:s  £11". P'Ot§?3,"' \«'A'I'~ 180 daied
7.3.1

.2008 iss1;£:d__i3y ?£§1eV’s2a¥id.’ir:s»;3o1:1d€::J.{ in the petitiormfs
case in reiaticfi 13;: ‘the’._ai3:’>1s::’saiti _m~v.5>’11¥hs (‘Annexurc:s~J to R),
etc. ” ‘ ” V V

_.’i’}3c%sé’*.§zii€:’1p<etiti:3i1s'comingbxi for orders, this day the
Cour; made"tt;:2 f<3i1Qwi:1g:_~ _ —

.bRnER

.'t}1e:…._1_€.'.«<«:=1*I1ec."1 counsel appearing an either

-éihce this Court in the case of Phiiips

..Ej(ec§Eré}:i¢s India Limited, fiwzgalore as. State af

A ._I{a;§nataka as others, reported 2009(66) KLJ 1 (H0)

V’ “flag heid ihai su15~se<::'£;i0n (3) cf Section 72 mi" Kalmataka

lfl

Adiied Value Act, 2003 (for short hereinafter referreci to
as $3516 'Act'; is déciared unconstitutional, the writ

petitian flied by the petitiarxer questi-3I1i11g the

orders dated 7.13.2008 passeé under

the Act, is entitied t{) be allmxsad. ; ?1jé » 1

foilowing order is made:–

Section 72(1) of ‘Eris declared
unconstitutianal in j.;;:iLAgn1¢11$: in Vthe case 0f

Philips Electronics.. ;L»i&i*ii Q.i1f,–“V”Bangalore vs.

stat: “of” 8» ‘ reported :2oo9(55;

(He). the impugned Grders dated
v§d;e_VAnIiéx1;g1’esV-}J gated 7.11.2008 stand quashad.
i..A’»§i:’i~tA.pe€.§%i(§:’1s’are alIaweda
Judge

_