Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.85 seconds)

Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Saktigarh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 16 December, 2004

7.9 In order to support the above reason, we may rely upon the reasoning given in the decision in A. Gupta Trust Estate v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Shillong - , by a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, cited by Mr. Chakraborty and relied upon by Mr. Banerjee wherein similar question was being dealt with in relation to the provisions contained in the Wealth Tax Act, which is a self-contained Code as in the case of the Central Excise Act. In the said case, unlike the provisions of the Central Excise Act, since substituted by Section 35H, the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 contained in Sub-section (9) a provision that the Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (1908 Act) would apply and this Sub-section (9) was deleted after the Limitation Act, 1963 came into force. This deletion was held to have been in consonance with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the silence of the statute with regard to the application of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act will not exclude its application, which is supposed to apply unless excluded expressly or impliedly.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document

Mohammad Sagir vs Bharat Heavy Electricals And Ors. on 24 February, 2004

The various decisions on which learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance including the decision of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480 have all been considered in the case of A. Gupta Trust Estate (supra). Since we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in that case and in view of what we have already indicated above, we do not find it necessary to discuss those cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 6 - D Misra - Full Document

Procter & Gamble India Limited And Anr. vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 September, 1993

It is true that there are similar observations of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in the case of A. Gupta Trust Estate Dibrugarh v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Shillong, (1983)2 Gauhati Law Reports 291. It is also true that some observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain (M.P.) v. Vijay Gupta and others, 1991 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 631 also support Shri Walavalkar's contention. In para 3 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, at page 633 of Report it has been observed as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1