Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (4.09 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Auriaya Chamber Of Commerce, Allahabad on 10 April, 1986

Tube Products Of India vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 1988

Relying on the above decisions of the Supreme Court reported in D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore 1978 ELT 154 and Commissioner v. Auriaya Chamber 1986 (25) ELT 867 and the judgment of this Court reported in Soft Beverages (Pvt) Ltd., Madurai v. Union of India and Anr. 1982 ELT 119 learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 29-12-1980 directing refund was perfectly valid and the subsequent order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 6-2-1982 cannot be sustained. I see considerable force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the judgments relied upon by him fully support his case.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Tosh And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise on 14 May, 1990

In this connection the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P. v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce (supra) may also be taken note of. Indubatedly in instant case the petitioner is not guilty of any laches since he has sent the claim for rebate by letter dated 14th November, 1981 well within time and mentioned therein that the formal claim will follow. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to refund on merit. Under such circumstances the respondent authorities should not have entangled themselves in the cobweb of procedures to defeat a just claim of the petitioner.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shri. Kshitij Pravin Desai And Anr vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, ... on 2 May, 2024

22. It is not the petitioners' case that the stamp duty was paid under any protest. Thus, the petitioners accepted the adjudication made under Section 31 of the Stamp Act, acted on it and registered the sale deed by paying the stamp duty. Thus, after deriving the adjudication order's benefit, it was challenged on the ground of a mistake. It is not disputed that the benefit of the amount of stamp duty paid on the 15/16 ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2024 18:04:34 ::: 901-WP-4838-2017.docx agreement for sale is given as a set-off while assessing the stamp duty on the deed of conveyance. Thus, there is no question of any refund as prayed by the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the facts of the present case, the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is of no assistance to the petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G Godse - Full Document

Mohan Steels Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 July, 1987

In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce , the assessee had paid the sales tax in respect of a forward contract for the assessment year 1949-50 under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, which was declared to be ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The assessee after coming to know of the said decision filed a revision in 1955 for quashing the assessment order in question. But the said revision was dismissed in September 1958 on the ground that it was filed after a long delay and was barred by limitation. The assessee subsequently filed an application before the Sales Tax Officer for refund of the amount which was deposited in accordance with the assessment order for the year and the subsequent orders under mistake. This claim of refund was again made on 24th May, 1959 which was dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 96 of the old Limitation Act, 1908. The assessee thereafter filed revision to the Court of Sales Tax, U.P. (Revision). The Addl. Sessions Judge (Revision) allowed the claim holding that at the time when the taxes were paid and the assessment was made there was no section in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 dealing with any period of limitation for refund. Against this order the Commissioner of Sales Tax went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While dismissing the appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the direction of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Revision), Sales Tax for refund of the amount to the dealer was proper and valid; that there was no section dealing with any period of limitation for refund at that time; and the application was within two years as provided under the proviso of newly added Section 29 which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1959. Thus it is clear that the ratio of ,the said decision is not applicable to the case in hand as in the instant case a specific period of six months for claiming the refund was provided in the said Rule 11 in question.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 1991

30. Reference, in this connection may be made to Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Awiya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad 1986 (25) ELT 867, wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution, no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law and when such tax is collected and levied, the amount is refundable to the assessee . because the realisatian was illegal and right of refund was embedded in the fact of payment.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next