Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Larsen And Toubro Ltd., Mumbai vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 5 November, 2003

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 13 June, 2008

9. The assessment order passed against the assessee in respect of works contract by applying Rule 13A was challenged before the Patna High Court in the case of "Larsen and Toubro v. State of Bihar" {2004} 134 STC 354. In that case the fact was that petitioner executed a works contract and submitted return. In response to the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Authority, petitioner produced their metes and bonds and other details to finalize assessment for the period 2000-01. The order of assessment was passed on 7th January, 2002. The said order was challenged on the ground inter alia that the manner and extent of deduction as contemplated under Section 21(1)(a)(i) has not been provided. The said case was registered by the department on the ground that deductions were made as per the amended Rule 13A of the Sales Tax Rules as amended in February 2000. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court set aside the assessment order holding that Rule 13A of the Rules as amended in 2000 was not workable because the manner and extent of deduction relating to any other charges has not been provided. The Bench observed:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) And ... on 2 November, 2007

25. A similar question came for consideration before a Division bench of the Patna High Court in the case of the present petitioner namely Larsen and Toubro v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 134 STC 345, wherein the Patna High Court following the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the State Legislature can not impose tax on sale in course of the inter-state trade or commerce in relation to works contract since they fall outside the field of legislative competence of the State Legislature. Their Lordships observed:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 18 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 11 October, 2007

20. Learned Counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that the necessary Rules have not been framed pursuant to the Act but an objection was taken on the ground of alternative remedy. This Court is of the opinion that if the Act is unworkable in the absence of necessary Rules, as has been held by several judgments referred to above, any assessment under the said Act cannot be enforced even if such an assessment order is made by an authority under the Act purportedly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The inherent infirmity of an assessment order passed on the basis of circulars which have no statutory sanction cannot be cured by an appellate order. In other words, if the assessment order itself is not sustainable on account of unworkability of the provisions under which they are purportedly made, no purpose would be served by filing appeal against the said order and this question cannot be decided by the appellate authority under the Act. In the instant case, both the assessing officer and the appellate authority are bound to follow the instructions contained in the circulars. Therefore, no purpose would be served by filing appeal before the appellate authority.
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next