THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA vs MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ORS. ETC. — C.A. No. 2168/2007

Case under Direct Taxation : Income Tax Act, 1961, Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Gift Tax Act, 1958, Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, Business Profit Tax Act, 1947 [Other Than Matters Covered by Categories 1602-1605] Section XII-B. Status: DISPOSED.

CNR: SCIN010221222006

DISPOSED

Filing Date

31-Aug-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 2168/2007

Diary Number

22122/2006

Order Date

08-Jul-2024

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2024 INSC 484

Disposal Type

Appeals Allowed

Data as of 01-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Direct Taxation : Income Tax Act, 1961, Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Gift Tax Act, 1958, Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, Business Profit Tax Act, 1947 [other than matters covered by categories 1602-1605] Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA

Adv. V. N. RAGHUPATHY[P-1]

Respondent(s)

MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ORS. ETC.

Adv. NANDA KISHORE[R-1] RAJESH MAHALE (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-5] RAJ BAHADUR YADAV[R-2] RAJ BAHADUR YADAV[R-3] RAJ BAHADUR YADAV[R-4]

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

08-Jul-2024

Fixed Date by Court

29-Nov-2023

Fixed Date by Court

12-Oct-2023

Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

11-Oct-2023

Fixed Date by Court

21-Sep-2023

Fixed Date by Court

Orders

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 002168/2007: THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA v. MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed income tax TDS collection orders against Mysore Sales, holding that excise contractors purchasing arrack vending rights via auction are not "buyers" under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act—thus excluding them from TDS obligations—because: (1) arrack itself is not obtained through auction but rather vending rights, and (2) retail sale prices are statutorily fixed under state excise rules. The Court also mandated that natural justice principles require notice and hearing before issuing prejudicial Section 206C(6) orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Supreme Court of India All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case