Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd vs S. P. Kushare, S. T. O. Nagpur & Ors on 28 September, 1967

Mohan Lal Verma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 20 December, 1971

36. Sri S. C. Khare has relied on Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri [1954] 26 I.T.R. 713 (S.C.), Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1045, M. Ct. Muthiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1956] 29 I.T R. 390 (S.C.), Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala [1961] 3 S.C.R. 77, K. S. Bhat v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer [1963] 48 I.T.R. 21 (S.C.), National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Its Workmen [1963] 1 S.C.R. 779, Anandji Haridas and Company Ltd. v. S. P. Kushare [1968] 1 S.C.R. 661 and Income-tax Officer, Assam v. Lawrence Singh [1968] 68 I.T.R. 272 (S.C.). The provisions of law which were considered in those cases are different from Section 3-AB. In the first case the discrimination was sought to be justified on the basis of a date line. The second case is not a tax case. The third case deals with procedural discrimination in a taxing statute. In the fourth case a flat rate of tax was condemned. In the fifth case a taxation provision was held as not violative of Article 14. For historical reasons the classification was found reasonable and not discriminatory. The sixth case is not a tax case. The seventh and eighth cases relate to exemption clause in a taxing statute.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Mewa Devi And Ors. vs Sri Kishan Das And Ors. on 5 November, 1982

(35) In the case of Anandji Haridas & Co. (supra) the appellant was a registered dealer under the Cp and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. It failed to furnish returns for certain quarters. They were served with notices under Section 11(4)(a) of the Act to show cause as to why they should not be assessed to the best of judgment by the assessing authority. Section 11(4)(a) only applies to registered dealers. Section 11A(1) applies to both types of dealers registered or un-registered. Under the latter provision the limitation for commencing the proceeding was three years whereas there was no such provision of limitation under Section 11(4)(a). Contention of the assessed was that since they were proceeded under section 11(4)(a), they could not have the benefit of the limitation period of 3 years and on the facts found that Section 11(4)(a) had become discriminatory. Hence, Section 11(4)(a) was struck down.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ... vs Shrimal Sakharchand on 11 April, 1984

15. Mr. Jetly also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S. P. Kushare, Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur . That was a case under the C.P. and Berar Act, 1947. The provisions which fell for consideration in that case were sections 11 and 11A of that Act. While section 11 deals with assessment, section 11A deals with assessment on turnovers escaping assessment. Section 11(4)(a) inter alia provides that if a registered dealer does not furnish returns in respect of any period by he prescribed date, the Commissioner shall in the prescribed manner assess the dealer to the best of his judgment. The proviso to section 11(4)(a) runs thus :
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - M H Kania - Full Document
1