Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Electronics Corporation Of India ... vs Secretary,Revenue ... on 5 May, 1999

Madurai Multi Functional Complex ... vs The Madurai Corporation

111.The 1st respondent has an inherent right to demand tax. The petitioner's claim that the buildings are exempted from tax based on Article 285 of the Constitution of India falls flat on the very words of the Hon'ble Constitution of Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 458 (Electronics Corporation of India Limited and others Vs. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others) referred supra, wherein, the Hon'ble Constitution of Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had very clearly held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Ashis Sen And Ors. vs Arun Kumar Bose And Ors. on 7 March, 2006

In support of his contention Mr. Dey cited the decisions in Probodh Kumar Chakraborty v. Arijit Chakraborty reported in 2003 (4) CHN 10, Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sodha and Ors. , Pentakota Satyanarayana and Ors. v. Pentakota Seetharatnam and Ors. , Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. and Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage .
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

India Waste Energy Development Ltd. And ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 13 November, 2002

7. As noted above, the order of the Collector has been challenged on various grounds but during the course of hearing, the main thrust of Mr. Sethi's argument was that since the business of waste management was not exigible to sales tax, Section 32 of the Act had no application and, therefore, the liability of Byford could not be fastened on the petitioner. It is urged that since the entire liability of Byford pertains to its business of selling cars and the said business having not been transferred to the petitioner, these dues cannot be recovered from the petitioner, even if it is assumed that Byford had transferred its business of waste management to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that there has been no attempt by the petitioner to circumvent the recovery proceedings against Byford. Learned counsel has submitted with considerable fervour that the question of lifting the corporate veil does not arise at all because there is no specific provision in the Act or the Rules enabling or authorising the Collector to do so. In support of the second proposition, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1964) 34 Company Cases 458, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. The Income Tax Officer, B-1, B-Ward, Hyderabad and Anr. and Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. .
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - D K Jain - Full Document

Jaisingh S/O Asharfilal Yadav And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 31 March, 2003

20. As regards the second submission pertaining to the reading down of Section 2(d) in relation to the expression 'preceding period of ten years' to be effective or to commence from 24-2-1999, if accepted virtually amounts to reading something in the said provision of law which is not intended by the Legislature, and thereby it would virtually amount to defeat the very purpose of the said Act itself, apart from the fact that it is settled law that once the contention about unconstitutionality of the provision of law is rejected, question of reading down the same provision does not arise. The Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others has held that "the question of reading down comes in if it is found that these provisions are ultra vires as they stand. We have held that these provisions are not ultra vires because Article 285 does not apply when the property that is to be taxed is not of the Union of India but of a distinct and separate legal entity."
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Appa @ Prakash Haribhau Londhe vs State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 July, 2006

20. As regards the second submission submission pertaining to the reading down of Section 2(d) in relation to the expression 'preceding period of ten years' to be effective or to commence from 24-2-1999, if accepted virtually amounts to reading something in the said provision of law which is not intended by the Legislature, and thereby it would virtually amount to defeat the very purpose of the said Act itself, apart from the fact that it is settled law that once the contention about unconstitutionality of the provision of law is rejected, question of reading down the same provision does not arise. The Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Secretary Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. has held that " the question of reading down comes in if it is found that the provisions are ultra vires as they stand. We have held that these provisions are not ultra vires because Article 285 does not apply when the property that is to be taxed is not of the Union of India but of a distinct and separate legal entity."
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - D G Deshpande - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary To ... vs Tvl.South Indian Sugar Mills ... on 16 March, 2004

In "ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ", a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while considered the case of a lease by the Union of India through the Department of Atomic Energy and a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. In that case the entire matter was dealt with and resulted in disposal by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the company was a lessee of the Union of India. At the time of appeal before the Supreme Court, a case was put up by the appellant Company that it was not a lessee of the Union of India in respect of the land and, therefore, there was no lease in its favour. While negativing the said contention, the Supreme Court held that it is quite the reverse of the case of the appellant Company in the writ petition and therefore, it is an impermissible submission. Holding so, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the said submission.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - D Murugesan - Full Document

Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo ... vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 15 October, 2009

20. As regards the second submission pertaining to the reading down of Section 2(d) in relation to the expression 'preceding period of ten years' to be effective or to commence from 24-2-1999, if accepted virtually amounts to reading something in the said provision of law which is not intended by the Legislature, and thereby it would virtually amount to defeat the very purpose of the said Act itself, apart from the fact that it is settled law that once the contention about unconstitutionality of the provision of law is rejected, question of reading down the same provision does not arise. The Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in AIR1999SC1734 has held that "the question of reading down comes in if it is found that these provisions are ultra vires as they stand. We have held that these provisions are not ultra vires because Article 285 does not apply when the property that is to be taxed is not of the Union of India but of a distinct and separate legal entity."
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 11 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next