Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Another on 21 November, 1995

M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kerala vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 4 April, 2007

"16. Section 5-C in force prior to this amendment prescribed "total turnover" as the basis for levy of tax. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the judgment rendered in the case of M/s Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 100 STC 533 had struck down Section 5- C as beyond the competence of State legislature. The amendment now introduced substitutes the whole of Section 5-C with retrospective effect from 01.4.1986 so as to overcome the aforesaid judgment. The newly substituted section prescribes 'taxable turnover' as the basis for levy of tax. Assessments, if any, completed adopting the basis of 'taxable turnover' for levy of tax, stand automatically validated by the validation clause at section 7 of the Amendment Act. In all such cases, it would be in order for the assessing authorities to pursue action for realization of the taxes levied by issuance of simple notices, without going in for rectification, re-assessments or revisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 80 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Binani Industries Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 2 August, 2001

"16. Section 5-C in force prior to this amendment prescribed 'total turnover' as the basis for levy of tax. The High Court of Karnataka in the judgment rendered in the case of Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 100 STC 533, had struck down Section 5-C as beyond the competence of State Legislature. The amendment now introduced substitutes the whole of Section 5-C with retrospective effect from April 1, 1986 so as to overcome the aforesaid judgment. The newly substituted section prescribed 'taxable turnover' as the basis for levy of tax. Assessments, if any, completed adopting the basis of 'taxable turnover' for levy of tax, stand automatically validated by the validation clause at Section 7 of the Amendment Act. In all such cases, it would be in order for the assessing authorities to pursue action to realisation of the taxes levied by issuance of simple notices, without going in for rectifications, reassessments or revisions.
Karnataka High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Binani Industries Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 6 October, 2005

6. Section 5-C of the Act was amended by Act No. 4 of 1992 with effect from April 1, 1986 substituting the words "total turnover" in the place of "taxable turnover". The validity or otherwise of Section 5-C of the Act, as amended by Act No. 4 of 1992 was questioned before this Court by dealers registered under the Act. This Court in the case of Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd, v. Union of India [1996] 100 STC 533 had declared that the amended provision which is given effect from April 1, 1986 as unconstitutional and invalid. Thereafter, the State Legislature by the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act No. 5 of 1996), has again substituted Section 5-C of the Act with retrospective effect from April 1, 1986. Immediately thereafter, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, has issued a circular dated April 12, 1996, clarifying the position in regard to the newly substituted Section 5-C of the Act. The effect of the clarification by the aforesaid circular was, that, if the goods in respect of which the right to use is transferred have been subjected to tax under Section 5(3)(a) of the Act, then no tax need be paid under Section 5-C of the Act. The assessing authorities, following the circular instruction issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, had. completed pending assessments and had not levied tax under Section 5-C of the Act, if the goods in respect of which the right to use is transferred have been subjected to tax under Section 5(3)(a) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 13 September, 2002

22. The division Bench of this Court in Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1996] 100 STC 533 dealt with the difference between total turnover and taxable turnover. The matter under consideration before the division Bench was Section 5-C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Act 4 of 1992) which was introduced with retrospective effect. This Court held that the tax levied under Section 5-C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, on the transfer of right to use goods is with reference to the definition of "total turnover" contained in Section 2(u-2) of the Act. "Taxable turnover" in Section 2(u-1) excludes turnover of purchases or sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export or import of goods outside or inside the territory of India, while "total turnover" is the aggregate of turnover including the transactions whether or not the whole or any portion of turnover is liable to tax or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of import or export of goods into the country. The Legislature has made a distinction between turnover of the sale of goods on which tax is not leviable and sale of goods on which tax is leviable. As a result of the use of the words "total turnover" in Section 5-C, the ambit of incidence of tax has been widened so as to include transactions outside the sphere of tax within the competence of the State. Thus Section 5-C transgresses the limits of legislative power in contravention of Article 286(1) of the Constitution inasmuch as it enables tax being imposed on deemed sales that take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of import or export. Since the invalidity of Section 5-C goes to the root of imposition of tax, the court held that Section 5-C has to be declared invalid.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 12 - K N Bhakthavatsala - Full Document

Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd. vs State Of Gujarat on 29 December, 1998

9. The decision in Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd (supra) of Karnataka High Court was in the light of the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act. That the decision does not refer to any provision of Karnataka Sales Tax Act which was like Section 87 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, nor does it refer to definition of `sale' adopted in Karnataka Act. In the absence of any reference to any comparable provisions of the two different enactments, emanating from different sources, it is not possible to draw any comparison and apply the ratio on analogy. In our opinion, both the decisions are of no assistance to the petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A R Dave - Full Document
1