Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Saini And Co. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 September, 2000

Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 April, 2003

In paragraph 22 of the same the respondents have sought to distinguish the decision in Saini and Co. v. Union of India [2000] 246 ITR 762 (HP) [FB], since that decision was delivered in the case of petitioners holding "L-13" licences who purchased liquor from distilleries and sold it to retailers, whereas in the present case there is no stockist and distilleries are selling liquor directly to the retailers from their depots. The case of K.K. Mittal and Co. [1991] 187 ITR 208 (P & H) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the petitioners in that case were retail vendors who had obtained country liquor licences in an auction, and the maximum and minimum price were both fixed in each size of the bottles. In the present case, it is alleged that the quantity of the liquor is not fixed and it need not be sold by the retailer at a fixed price. The other decisions, referred to by the petitioner have been similarly sought to be distinguished.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - M Katju - Full Document

Mysore Sales International Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 27 October, 2003

43. The Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Saini & Co. v. Union of India (supra) considered Section 206C of the Act. Before noticing the law laid down, it is necessary to notice the facts of this case. In that case, the petitioner filed petitions praying for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to deduct tax at source under Section 206C of the IT Act from the petitioner who are holding L-13 licences treating them as buyers where goods have not been obtained by them by auction and where sale price of such goods to be sold by them is fixed by the State Government. The petitioners were engaged in the business of liquor in the State of Himachal Pradesh. They were granted licences under the Punjab Excise Act. They obtained a licence at a fixed fee by the Government. That was not a case where another agency was involved with regard to sale of arrack. That was also not a case of an auction and the facts would show that they were only acting as a stockists of the Government.
Karnataka High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 7 - R Gururajan - Full Document

Excise Commissioner & Anr. vs Mysore Sales International Ltd. & Ors. on 13 March, 2006

In this regard, he had placed reliance upon other judgments of the Apex Court, i.e., Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and Full Bench decision of HP High Court reported as Saini & Co. v. Union of India (2000) 246 ITR 762 (HP), Vinod Rathore v. Union of India (2005) 278 ITR 122 (MP) of the MP High Court, Bikul Das & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. (1998) 231 ITR 247 (Gau) and also strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the learned single Judge had accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the department by its senior standing counsel that the price is not fixed by the State Government under the Act for sale of goods of liquor of arrack in retail by the buyers for the reason assigned by him that as there is minimum and maximum price and therefore there is no price fixed for sale of liquor in retail under the Act or Rules by the State Government. Therefore, he had contended that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 206C of the Act are applicable to the appellants 1 and 2, hence they were required to collect the income-tax at source from the buyers is an erroneous approach of the learned single Judge. Hence they submit that the impugned order of the learned single Judge and assessment orders passed by the assessing officer are liable to be set aside and quashed respectively by this court in exercise of this Courts' judicial review power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Excise Commissioner And Anr. vs Mysore Sales International Ltd. And ... on 13 March, 2006

In this regard, he had placed reliance upon other judgments of the apex Court, i.e., Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT , K.P. Varghese v. ITO and Full Bench decision of HP High Court reported as Saini & Co. v. Union of India , Vinod Rathore v. Union of India of the MP High Court, Bikul Das and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. and also strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court. It is contended by the learned senior Counsel that the learned single Judge had accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the Department by its senior standing counsel that the price is not fixed by the State Government under the Act for sale of goods of liquor of arrack in retail by the buyers for the reason assigned by him that as there is minimum and maximum price and therefore there is no price fixed for sale of liquor in retail under the Act or Rules by the State Government. Therefore, he had contended that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 206C of the Act are applicable to the appellants 1 and 2, hence they were required to collect the income-tax at source from the buyers is an erroneous approach of the learned single Judge. Hence they submit that the impugned order of the learned single Judge and assessment orders passed by the AO are liable to be set aside and quashed respectively by this Court in exercise of this Courts' judicial review power under ArticleS 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. vs Dy. Cit (Tds)-I on 13 March, 2006

In this regard, he had placed reliance upon other judgments of the Apex Court in Ellerman Lines Ltd v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC); K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and Full Bench decision of H.P. High Court in Saini & Co. v. Union of India (2000) 246 ITR 762 (HP), Vinod Rathore v. Union of India (2005) 278 ITR 122 (MP), Bikul Das v. State of Assam ( 1998) 231 ITR 247 (Gauhati) and also strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court. It is contended by the learned Sr. Counsel that the learned Single Judge had accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the department by its Sr. standing counsel that the price is not fixed by the State Government under the Act for sale of goods of liquor of arrack in retail by the buyers for the reason assigned by him that as there is minimum and maximum price and, therefore, there is no price fixed for sale of liquor in retail under the Act or Rules by the State Government. Therefore, he had contended that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 206C of the Act are applicable to the appellant Nos. I and 2, hence, they were required to collect the income tax at source from the buyers is an erroneous approach of the learned Single Judge. Hence, they submit that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and assessment orders passed by the assessing officer are liable to be set aside and quashed respectively by this court in exercise of this court's judicial review power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sankatha Shukla & 123 Others vs Union Of India Thru Comm.Of Income Tax ... on 9 May, 2013

"For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We reiterate the ratio laid down in Gian Chand Ashok Kumar's case (1991) 187 188 (HP) and overrule the decision in Rudra and Co.'s case (1998) 233 ITR 66 (HP). We declare that the persons holding L-13, L-13A licenses cannot be said to be 'buyers' and the provisions relating to deduction (collection?) of tax at source do not apply to them. Consequently, the letter dated June 16, 1998 (annexure R3-1), must be held to be illegal and contrary to law and the respondents are permanently restrained from deducting any amount towards tax at source.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document
1