Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 299 (1.67 seconds)

C.S. Menon vs The Sales Tax Officer And Anr. on 21 February, 1967

1. The petitioner is an engineering contractor. In respect of works contracts, which he executed during the years 1950-51 to 1959-60 both inclusive, he was assessed to sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (Act 11 of 1125) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Exhibits P-2 series are true copies of the orders of assessment made by the 1st respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Ernakulam, in respect of the above-said years. The taxes assessed under these orders were duly paid by the petitioner ; and the total amount which he has paid by way of sales tax and surcharge is shown in exhibit P-l, a statement which he has appended to this original petition. The correctness of these facts is not questioned in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The Supreme Court in South India Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum [1964] 15 S.T.C. 74, held that the provisions contained in the Act, in so far as they authorised levy of sales tax on works contract, were beyond the legislative competence of the State and unconstitutional. This decision was rendered on 13th August, 1963. On the basis of this decision, the petitioner moved the Government for the refund of the amounts which he paid by way of tax for the aforesaid years, on the ground that he knew only by the above decision of the Supreme Court that the State was not entitled to levy tax on works contract, and that he was, therefore, entitled to get the amounts refunded. The petitioner did not get any reply to this application ; and, therefore, he has come before this Court for a writ of mandamus to be issued against the respondents for refund of the amounts shown in exhibit P-1.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.Sathish Kumar vs The Secretary To Government

Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Oil And Natural Gas Commission on 2 November, 2001

"A clause beginning with the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract' is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause or any contract or document mentioned in the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation of the enactment. See in this connection the observations of this court in South India Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, AIR 1964 SC 207 ; [1964] 4 SCR 280."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ggs Properties Private Limited Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2025

Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead letter" is not harmonious construction. To harmonise is not to destroy. A familiar approach in all such cases is to find out which of the two apparently conflicting provisions is more general and which is more specific and to construe the more general one as to exclude the more specific. [South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Board of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAAGDEVE Signing time: 16-Dec-25 1:40:28 PM 13 WP-13457-2023 Revenue [South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1964 SC 207 : (1964) 4 SCR 280] , AIR p. 215; Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. [Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90 : (1963) 3 SCR 209] , AIR p. 95; J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

B.R. Vasudevamurthy S/O. H.D. ... vs Hon'Ble Minister For Revenue, ... on 22 December, 2006

42. The sanction and grant orders passed by the State Government and Spl. D.C in respect of the lands in question were subject to the rights of the inamdars under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act to seek grant of occupancy rights by filing the application within the prescribed period under Section 10 of the Act. The words "subject to" used in the above orders shall be understood by us as mentioned in Blacks Law Dictionary and Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary, it means 'subservient'; therefore grant of the lands in favour of the Sangha/Association for the purpose of formation of residential layout and allot the sites in favour of its members was subject to the order that was to be passed by the Land Tribunal on the application of the inamdars under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act in respect of the very same lands. Since the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of the inamdars in respect of the lands in question by order dt. 23/6/1982, the sanction order and grant order have vanished and lost their significance. The condition imposed by the State Government and Spl.D.C in their orders while granting the lands in favour of the Sangha is legal and valid as held by the Apex Court in the cases reported in AIR 1961 SC 1182 (Balakrishna & Sons v. State of Madras) para 3, (Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and Ors.) and 1995 SCR 777 (The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Anr.) The State Government has exercised its power retained in the order of sanction by invoking its right as held in (Gujarat University and Anr. v. Shri Krishna) & (Mysore State E. Board v. Bangalore W.C. & S. Mills), (M.V. Shankar Bhat and Anr. v. Claude Pinto and Ors.), (South India Corporation (P) Ltd v. Secy. Board of Revenue, Trivandrum And Anr.) and passed the impugned order cancelling the grant and directing the Deputy Commissioner of the District for resumption and restoration of the lands to an extent of 182 sites which are vacant. The same is legal and valid.
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

M/S Vidhya Enterprises Through Its ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2025

Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead letter" is not harmonious construction. To harmonise is not to destroy. A familiar approach in all such cases is to find out which of the two apparently conflicting provisions is more general and which is more specific and to construe the more general one as to exclude the more specific. [South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Board of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAAGDEVE Signing time: 16-Dec-25 1:40:28 PM 13 WP-20914-2024 Revenue [South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1964 SC 207 : (1964) 4 SCR 280] , AIR p. 215; Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. [Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90 : (1963) 3 SCR 209] , AIR p. 95; J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next