UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S VERTIVE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

292 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1 . THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REVENUE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE 137, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-1100 001 2 . THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001 3 . THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING JANAPATH ROAD

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ORCHESTRATE SYSTEMS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

292 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1 . THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REVENUE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE 137, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-1100 001 2 . THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001 3 . THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING JANAPATH ROAD

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S HP PPS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

292 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1 . THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REVENUE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE 137, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-1100 001 2 . THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001 3 . THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING JANAPATH ROAD

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ESCON GENSETS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

292 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1 . THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REVENUE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE 137, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-1100 001 2 . THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001 3 . THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING JANAPATH ROAD

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S P S BHAT BROTHER

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

292 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1 . THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REVENUE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE 137, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-1100 001 2 . THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001 3 . THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING JANAPATH ROAD

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

292 to the said effect and same reads as under: “14. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no rule

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

292 to the said effect and same reads as under: “14. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no rule

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

292 to the said effect and same reads as under: “14. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no rule

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

292. 6(B) BALU S/O LATE VITTOBHA AGED MAJOR, OCC. M/S. RAJASHREE CEMENT EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF AGITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD KALABURAGI DISTRICT. 6(C ) JAGANATH S/O LATE VITTOBHA AGED MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF DIGGAON VILLAGE CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. 7. SHANKAR @ SHIVASHANKAR S/O NEELKANTAPPA AGED MAJOR, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE RESIDENT OF UDAGI VILLAGE SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. 8. BASAWANTHA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

68 that the levy of penalty is a mandatory penalty. In the Notes on Clauses also the similar indication has been given. 29. Above being the position, the plea that the rr.96ZQ and 96ZO have a concept of discretion in built cannot be sustained. Dilip Shroff’s case (supra) was not correctly decided but Chairman, SEBI’s case (supra

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANJAY JAYARAM vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI B S PATIL vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

R NAGARATHNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER