Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 291 (1.61 seconds)

Emerald International Ltd. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 21 February, 1997

18. The perusal of the aforementioned observations of the apex Court clearly show that the apex Court while dealing with the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act and Section 406 of the said Act as amended by Gujarat Act (5 of 1970) held that the right of appeal was the creature of the statute and that it failed to understand as to why the Legislature while granting the right of appeal could not impose conditions for the exercise of such right. While reproducing the observations of the apex Court we do riot and need not comment upon the constitutional validity of the provision of the statute with which we are dealing with as the vires of the two Acts have already been upheld by the Division Bench while referring the case to us. The aforementioned observations, in our considered view, throw sufficient light, for holding that the assessee have to accept the conditions laid down in the provision pertaining to appeals if they want to take advantage of the same and that the conditions imposed therein cannot be described to be onerous. Moreover, the words "undue hardship" cannot, in our considered view, be equated with the words "unable to pay" as have been used in the statute.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 15 - A Bhan - Full Document

Chatter Singh Baid And Ors. vs Corporation Of Calcutta And Ors. on 1 June, 1983

In my view, the observations made in para 40 of the Supreme Court decision in Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat. , are directly against the above submission of the petitioners. With reference to Section 406 (2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Act, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the legislature to impose similar condition for deposit while granting right of appeal. According to the Supreme Court, there was no legal or constitutional impediment to imposition of such a condition. I respectfully agree and apply the aforesaid observations in upholding the validity of Section 183 (3-A) of the Calcutta Municipal Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 October, 2023

32. The aforesaid judgment, in my view, squarely supports the case of the State. As already held in Anant Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), and noticed in Kesoram Industries Ltd. (supra) also, 'land' cannot be assigned a narrow meaning so as to confine it to the surface of the earth. It includes all strata, above and below. In its legal significance, land has an indefinite extent upward and downward. Land remains land irrespective of its usage. The nature of land may be ignored, and land may be subjected to tax. It is also permissible to classify land according to its user. It is open to the legislature to consider the land which is useful for a particular utility and classify separately and tax it. Different pieces of land, having different potential are capable of being classified separately and taxed. Merely because "forest" is a separate Entry 19 in List II, (before the 42nd Amendment), it does not mean that it ceases to be land under Entry 49 of List II. Merely because a market is run on the land, it does not mean that tax on land tantamounts to tax on markets. The power to tax a building, without reference to its user was valid. Actual user of the building for the specified use was not necessary. Each one of the principles- which have been highlighted by me, are relevant and attracted in this case. There is no reason, therefore, in my view to not construe water flowing on land, in the form of a river/ stream, as land.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 232 - Cited by 0 - R Maithani - Full Document

M/S Ansal Prop.& Infrastructure Ltd. ... vs U.O.I.Thru.Secy.Ministry Of Law & ... on 28 February, 2020

We, however, do not think that such a contention can be raised in view of the law laid down by this Court in Anant Mills case. This Court said that right of appeal is the creature of a statute and it is for the legislature to decide whether the right of appeal should be unconditionally given to an aggrieved party or it should be conditionally given. Right of appeal which is a statutory right can be conditional or qualified. It cannot be said that such a law would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the statute does not create any right of appeal, no appeal can be filed. There is a clear distinction between a suit and an appeal. While every person has an inherent right to bring a suit of a civil nature unless the suit is barred by statute, however, in regard to an appeal, the position is quite opposite. The right to appeal inheres in no one and, therefore, for maintainability of an appeal there must be authority of law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 October, 2016

22. While coming to the aforesaid conclusions, this Court in P. Laxmi Devi case[(2008) 4 SCC 720] has relied on Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(1975) 2 SCC 175] , Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs [(1988) 4 SCC 402] andGu- jarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad[(1999) 4 SCC 468] in which this Court has tak- en a consistent view that the right of appeal or right of revision is not an absolute right and it is a statutory right which can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant made by the stat- ute. Following this consistent view of this Court, we hold that the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act, requiring deposit of 50% of the demand before a revision is entertained against the demand is only a condition for the grant of the right of revision and the proviso does not render the right of revision illusory and is within the legislative power of the State Legislature.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 4 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Narandas Hargovind Das And Ors. vs Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal And Ors. on 16 December, 1975

2. We now find that the Supreme Court in Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat has reversed the decision of the Gujarat High Court on appeal and has now been held that such a provision is not ultra vires or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Khanna J. Delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court has observed at page 1249- The bar created by Section 406(2)(e) to the entertainment of the appeal by person who has not deposited the amount of tax due from him and who is not able to show to the appellate Judge that the deposit of the amount would cause him undue hardship arises out of his own omission and default. The above provision, in our opinion, has not the effect of making invidious distinction or creating two classes with the object of meting out differential treatment to them, it only spells out the consequences flowing from the omission and default of a person who despite the fact that the deposit of the amount found due from him would cause him no hardship, declines of his own volition to deposit that amount. The right of appeal is the creature of a statute. Without a statutory provision creating such a right the person aggrieved is not entitled to file an appeal. We fail to understand as to why the legislature while granting the right of appeal cannot impose conditions for the exercise of such right. In the absence of any special reasons there appears to be no legal or constitutional impediment to the imposition of such conditions. It is permissible, for example, to prescribe a condition in criminal cases that unless a convicted person is released on bail, he must surrender to custody before his appeal against the sentence of imprisonment would be entertained. Likewise, it is permissible to enact a law that no appeal v shall lie against an order relating to an assessment of tax unless the tax had been paid. Such a provision was on the statute book in Section 30 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922....
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next