Search Results Page

Search Results

51 - 60 of 141 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 25 August, 1998

Sophia Girls School vs Cantonment Board And Anr. [Alongwith ... on 16 September, 2003

15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to various decision e.g., M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2003 UPTC 10; Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of UP., 1977 UPTC 81 : (1978) 41 STC 147; Union of India and Anr v. State of Haryana and Anr, (2000) 10 SCC 482 and State of UP. and Ors v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., 1977 UPTC 282 (SC) : AIR 1977 SC 355, etc., where it was held that where the controversy is a purely legal one or is likely to be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy. The question whether property tax can be imposed on educational institutions is certainly of a recurring nature, and hence should be decided.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - M Katju - Full Document

Roshan Packed Movers vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Anr. on 10 April, 2003

12. On the contrary, in Union of India v. State of Haryana, (2000) 10 SCC 487, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that where a pure question of law is raised, the issue can be considered by the writ court also. In the said case, the question whether provisions of telephone connections and instrument amount to sale and even so why the Union of India not exempted from payment of sales tax under the respective statute, was involved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that instead of relegating the parties to the statutory appellate authority, the High Court ought to have dealt with the issue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Chandan Son Of Aanganu vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Manoj Kumar ... on 17 October, 2006

Reference may be had to Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Ors. , Committee Of Management, S. P. G. Inter College, Eka, Forozabad And Anr. v. Regional Joint director of Education And Ors. 2004 (5) AWC 4956, State of U.P. v. Mohd. Moon AIR 1958 SC 86, Canon India Pvt Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2003 UPTC 10, Hidustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1977 UPTC 81, Union If India And Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (, Sophia Girls School, Meerut, Cantt v. Cantonment Board, Meerut And Anr. 2003 (6) AWC 4986.
Allahabad High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - V Prasad - Full Document

Siba Prasad Sahoo vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 17 September, 2003

26. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on some judgments, viz. in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. State Bank of Haryana, , as also on the judgment in the case of Harbans Lal Sahania v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., , on the question of hardship. Hardship is basically a question of fact. No such pleading of hardship is there in the writ petition. Apart from that those decisions were rendered while considering scope of alternative remedy in the context of Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well-known that for considering the efficacy of alternative remedy as against the jurisdiction of Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution completely different considerations are at play. Therefore, those judgments are not relevant here.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

Srei International Finance Ltd. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 18 March, 2008

23. Similarly in Union of India and Anr. v. State of Haryana, , a question came up for consideration whether alternative remedy is an adequate remedy in the context of the sales tax assessee. In that case the question was whether the sales tax authorities can assess sales tax on rental which was charged by the Union of India for supply of telephones. The Union of India filed Writ Petitions before the respective High Courts challenging the levy. Those Writ Petitions were dismissed in view of alternative remedy in form of statutory appeal. In that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Courts should not have dismissed the Writ Petitions as the questions raised were purely questions of law which required determination whether the provision of telephone connections and instruments amounted to sale and even so why was the Union of India was not exempted from sales tax under the respective statutes. The Supreme Court held that such questions should not be "put through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy". Saying so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the respective High Courts and remanded the Writ Petitions to the High Court for decision on merit.
Orissa High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And Ors. on 15 May, 2008

9. Similarly, in Union of India v. State of Haryana , a question came up for consideration whether alternative remedy is an adequate remedy in the context of the sales tax assessee/assessment. In that case the question was whether the sales tax authorities can assess sales tax on rental which was charged by the Union of India for supply of telephones. The Union of India filed writ petitions before the respective High Courts challenging the levy. Those writ petitions were dismissed in view of alternative remedy in form of statutory appeal. In that context the honourable Supreme Court held that the High Courts should not have dismissed the petitions as the questions raised were purely questions of law which required determination whether the provision of telephone connections and instruments amounted to sale and even so as to why the Union of India was not exempted from sales tax under the respective statutes. The Supreme Court held that such questions should not be "put through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy". Saying so, the honourable Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the respective High Courts and remanded the writ petitions to the High Courts for decision on merit. For these reasons, the present writ petition is maintainable even without exhaustion of the statutory remedy.
Orissa High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 12 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 2003

This judgment and the judgment under appeal was followed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Union of India and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., [2001] 123 STC 539 to hold that the rentals collected by the DoT cannot be equated with sale of goods or deemed sale of goods by way of transfer of the right to use goods within the meaning of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. For the aforementioned reasons we overrule those judgments. We must, however, consider the last submission that the impugned demands relate to not only rentals but also to various other charges and, therefore, for working out the correct demand, the cases have to go back to the assessing officer for raising fresh demand. We find considerable force in that submission. We set aside the demand in question and direct the DoT (the respondent) to file the 'Returns' within three months from today. The Assessing Authority shall make order of assessment and raise fresh demand in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 53 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Sudhir Kumar Jain vs Official Liquidator And Others on 29 November, 2012

15. Adverting to the other judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant, Union of India and another vs. State of Haryana's case (supra) would be of no avail since the issue in dispute in the said case in Special Leave Petitions was that the High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of an alternative remedy. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that the matter should have been examined by the High Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   2 3 4 5 6   7 8 9 10 11 Next