Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 794 (3.43 seconds)
Documents citing Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 25 October, 1989

M/S Jain Distillery Private Limited vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 28 September, 2021

"2. It is settled by the decision of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) 1 SCC 109 that the State Legislature has no jurisdiction to levy any excise duty on rectified spirit. The State can levy excise duty only on potable liquor fit for human consumption and as rectified spirit does not fall under that category the State Legislature cannot impose any excise duty.
Allahabad High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Mohan Meakin Ltd vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 31 August, 2017

"2. It is settled by the decision of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1990) 1 SCC 109 that the State Legislature has no jurisdiction to levy any excise duty on rectified spirit. The State can levy excise duty only on potable liquor fit for human consumption and as rectified spirit does not fall under that category the State Legislature cannot impose any excise duty.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohan Meakin Ltd vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 31 August, 2017

"2. It is settled by the decision of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1990) 1 SCC 109 that the State Legislature has no jurisdiction to levy any excise duty on rectified spirit. The State can levy excise duty only on potable liquor fit for human consumption and as rectified spirit does not fall under that category the State Legislature cannot impose any excise duty.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhanalakshmi Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Secretary To Government, Prohibition ... on 27 February, 2001

However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue, the impugned question that was for consideration in "Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd." case reported in [1991] 80 STC 270 (SC) was whether the vend fee collected on industrial alcohol under different legislations and rules in different States is valid. However, in the course of judgment, the Supreme Court also stated that sales tax cannot be collected on industrial alcohol because under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Orders, sales tax cannot be charged by the State on industrial alcohol.
State Taxation Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors on 15 January, 2004

Regulatory licence fee also has been held to be tax. The decision of a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. is also an authority for the proposition that such regulatory measures by imposing tax is permissible in law. It is also for that purpose reference to Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India assumes relevance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 258 - Cited by 433 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Khoday India Limited Reptd. By Its ... vs The State Of Karnataka Reptd. By Its ... on 29 January, 2007

22. It may be of significance to notice here while the judgment of the Supreme Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., is one rendered by a Bench comprising of 7 learned Judges of the Supreme Court and is followed in all the subsequent cases including the case of State of U.P v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. it is the ruling in Sythetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. as indicated in paragraph 86, which is specifically referred to in paragraph 27 in the case of State of U.P. v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. on which reliance is placed by the Government Advocate and attention of the Court is drawn to this observation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 12 - D V Kumar - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Ors vs Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. And Ors on 17 October, 2003

Entry 84 of List I and Entry 51 of List II were construed by this Court in Synthetic's case to hold that Parliament alone has the exclusive power to legislate and levy excise tax in respect of industrial alcohol. It is unnecessary to refer to the law with regard to the comparative competence of the Union and the States with regard to levy of excise, regulation and control of industrial alcohol prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Synthetics. Whatever the law was earlier, the decision in Synthetics now holds the field. In that decision the State's power to levy excise duty was held to be limited by Entry 51 to tax on alcoholic liquors for human consumption. It was also held that Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 as well as Serial No. 26 of the First Schedule to that Act covered the whole field on industrial alcohol and its products. Therefore since the coming into force of the IDR Act on 8th May 1952 the State Legislatures are constitutionally incompetent to levy any tax on industrial alcohol.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 95 - R Pal - Full Document

Modi Distillery vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 May, 2022

It is settled by the decision of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. [Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) 1 SCC 109] that the State Legislature has no jurisdiction to levy any excise duty on rectified spirit. The State can levy excise duty only on potable liquor fit for human consumption and as rectified spirit does not fall under that category the State Legislature cannot impose any excise duty.
Allahabad High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S D Singh - Full Document

The State Tamilnadu vs M/S.Alfred Berg & Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd on 1 December, 2004

(d)However, in case state is rendering service as distinct from its claim of so-called grant of privilege, it may charge fees based on quid pro quo." (emphasis supplied) 18.2. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in SYNTHETICS CHEMICALS LIMITED case, referred supra, irons out the doubt that the State is entitled to lay down regulations not only to ensure that the nonpotable alcohol is not diverted or misused as a substitute for potable alcohol, but also in case the State is rendering any service as distinct from its claim of so called grant of privilege it may charge fees based on the quid pro quo, inasmuch as the impugned amendment is only to complement the provisions of the Central Act but not in conflict with the same, because even though the MTPS Act was enacted by the Parliament, the enforcement of the same for levy, collection and appropriation of the duty imposed and collected under the Act is left to the State Government. The power of the State Government to frame the impugned Government Order cannot be attacked for want of legislative competency as rightly held by the learned single Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next