Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 243 (2.01 seconds)
Documents citing Bolani Ores Ltd. Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 24 September, 1974

Sri Madhusudan Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 6 March, 1991

of Howrah v. Shalimar Wood Products (Private) Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1691, p. 1694; Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 17, p. 29; Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1979, SC 798, pp. 810, 811]. Ordinarily if an Act is incorporated in a later Act, the intention is to incorporate the earlier Act, with all the amendments made in it upto the date of incorporation.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Filisita Lakra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2026

Referred to in Municipal Commr. of Howrah v. Shalimar Wood Products (P) Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1691, 1694 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 636 : (1963) 1 SCR 47; Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777 : AIR 1975 SC 17, 29 : (1975) 2 SCR 138; Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC 529, 548 : AIR 1979 SC 798, 810-811.] Ordinarily if an Act is incorporated in a later Act, the intention is to incorporate the earlier Act, with all the amendments made in it up to the date of incorporation.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

24 vs Dy. Regional Transport Officer on 11 March, 2010

In order to ascertain object, purpose and the legislative intent of the taxing statute, it will be appropriate to consider the decision of the Apex Court in the case of - Bolani Ores Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [AIR 1975 SC 17] . The learned counsel for the petitioner has already narrated the facts involved in the said case which are already mentioned hereinabove and therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate the same. The Apex Court while answering the question whether the dumpers, rockers and other vehicles used by the petitioner therein though registered under the Motor Vehicles Act 1930 are motor vehicles in the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930, it is necessary to consider the relevant observations of the Apex Court made in paragraph 28 of the said Act, which reads thus-
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - D D Sinha - Full Document

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 19 September, 2005

20. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also contended that in the earlier decision between the parties, it has been found that the Corporation is liable to pay tax. On a careful reading of the said decision, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is evident that in the said case the question was raised in respect of two categories of vehicles. One category of vehicles related to the vehicles which were occasionally using the public road belonging to the State either for the purpose of going to the Mine or at times using the public road for other purposes. So far as such category of vehicles are concerned, as indicated in paragraph 5 of the order passed in the writ petition, this Court was of the opinion that tax is payable, whereas in respect of other category of the vehicles which were claimed to be only used within the area belonging to the Corporation, the learned single Judge has accepted the contention that no tax is payable and had left the matter to be decided by the appropriate authority to come to a factual conclusion whether all those vehicles were being used or meant for use on public roads belonging to the State.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document

Cherian Thomas vs Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam ... on 8 December, 1980

This passage further lends support to the view that Section 5 (1) has to be construed as a provision substantial compliance of which is sufficient and that is what is required. No doubt when Section 3 (3) is attracted and the presumption arises against the petitioner, then it is for the petitioner to establish that the facts necessary to attract Section 5 (1) of the Act are obtained. It is to be remembered that as already indicated and as stated by the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa (AIR 1975 SC 17) the exigency of tax is the user of a vehicle on the public road or keeping that vehicle for use on the public road. The tax payer is entitled to, show that the exigency of tax has not fallen and that therefore he is not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the taxing Act. This I suppose is the principle on which the decision of the Supreme Court is founded.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 120 - Full Document

M.P. Electricity Board vs Anil Narendra on 10 August, 1999

"The test is laid down by the Supreme Court is adaptability or the suitability for a vehicle or mechanism or a device to be plied as a vehicle on a road which within the meaning of the expression 'public place' as defined in the Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act is a public place. Even going by that concept as the evidence in the case shows the bulldozer was being taken from the workshop to the Kadana Dal site on a road which was a public road, it was being driven in a public place.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - D Misra - Full Document

Lajkura Open Cast Project vs Regional Transport Officer on 16 January, 1996

12. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Ganguli is that O.J.C. No. 1398 (sic.) of 1993 was disposed of by looking at the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 17 and A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1371 (supra) but the important facts and the scope of the writ petition were not considered which relate to the question of registration in view of the changed provision of law.
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Doctors' Sahkari Grah Nirman Samiti ... vs Avas Avam Vikas Parishad And Anr. on 7 May, 1984

In the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1975 SC 17) it was found that after its amendment in the year 1940. Section 2 (c) of Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Aet, 1980 gave the same meaning to the expression "motor vehicle" as in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. One of the questions that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether, in view of Section 2 (c) of the Taxation Act under which the expression "motor vehicle" had the same meaning as in the the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, any subsequent amendment made in Section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the section defining the meaning of expression motor vehicle) by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, had an impact on the meaning of the expression 'motor vehicle' for purposes of the Taxation Act as well. Whereas the submission made by the petitioner in that case was that artifice adopted by legislature resulted in incorporation of the definition of expression 'motor vehicle' contained in the Motor Vehicles Act in the Taxation Act by reference, as such any subsequent amendment made in the Motor Vehicles Act did not have any effect on the provisions contained in the Taxation Act, the submission made on behalf of the State was that the definition of Motor Vehicle in the Taxation Act was not a definition by incorporation. It was only a definition by reference and as such the meaning of 'motor vehicle' in the taxation Act would be the same as defined from time to time in the Motor Vehicles Act. Observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment indicate that the opinion of the Supreme Court was that in such cases it is the real intention of the legislature which has to be gathered. The Court after taking into consideration the purpose of enactment of the two Acts observed thus :
Allahabad High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next