Dismissed

M/S. Namarata Bar and Restaurant, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2015WP/101990/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the validity of amendments to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2014. The petitioners sought directions declaring specific sections and notifications ultra vires. The High Court granted two weeks to comply with objections, failing which the petition would be dismissed. The court subsequently dismissed the petition due to non-compliance with office objections. No

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Petition dismissed for non-compliance with office objections.

M/S. Namarata Bar and Restaurant, Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

¶6

WP NO 101990-91 OF 2015 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. NAMARATA BAR & RESTAURANT,

¶9

MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD REPTD., BY ITS PARTNER, BALAKRISHNA K HEGDE, S/OB CHANDRASHEKAR,

¶10

AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶11

M/S.TRIVENI BAR & RESTAURANT,

¶12

NAR SAPTAPURA BHAVI, DHARWAD, REPTD., BY ITS OWNER, SRI.SUNIL N SHETTY S/O NAGAYYA SHETTY, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(By Sri. : H. R. KAMBIYAVAR ASSOCIATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶17

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALOORU-560001.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-5600009.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LVO 310, DHARWAD

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

¶22

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue direction declaring clauses 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Karnataka Act No. 15 of 2014) dated 28-02-2014 vide ANNEXURE-C, is ultra virus and opposed to the State’s Policy of merging the Sales Tax and consequently clause 9 of the Amendment inserting Entry 59n A to the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act is ultra virus so far as petitioners are concerned and Issue direction declaring that the corresponding Notification Dated 28-02-2014, Notification II vide ANNEXURE-D is ultra virus State’s Power under Section 5(1) of the KVAT Act and so far as petitioners are concerned and issue direction declaring that the order alongwith notice of demand of ax dated 23.01.2015 & 19.11.2014 vide ANNEXURE-E, E1 respectively issued by the 3^rd respondent as illegal and opposed to the law.

¶23

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following;

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

“The learned Counsel for the petitioner is granted six weeks’ time to comply with the office objections, failing which, the petition stands dismissed automatically, without further reference to the Court.”

¶26

SD/JUDGE.

¶27

Note : As per the endorsement made in the order sheet dated 15/02/2016, the Advocate for the Petitioner has not complied with the office objections. Hence, this WP No 101990-91/2015 stands dismissed, as per the Court Order dated 26/11/2015.

¶28

Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶29

T By :- svp R- By:C- By:-

M/S. Namarata Bar and Restaurant, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Namarata Bar and Restaurant, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Maharaj Peg Bar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dundappa S/O Andaneppa Bali Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepak Shrikant Haradi Vs the State of Karnataka

Nazminnisa W/O Sayed Ahmed Saheb Peerzade, Vs Sheesh S/O Hassan Mohatesham

Ratnamma D/O. K Siddana Gouda Vs Y.Shivaramappa

Mohammad Gouse S/O. Mohiddin Badsa Vs Ameer Begum Khatijabi