Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 269 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing District Mining Officer And Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. & Anr on 31 July, 2001

M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd Having ... vs The State Of Jharkhand (Through ... on 12 November, 2024

25. Therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Authority holding the petitioner is not liable to pay cess on royalty in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) had to be given effect to and implemented by the certificate officer.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd Having ... vs The State Of Jharkhand (Through ... on 12 November, 2024

25. Therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Authority holding the petitioner is not liable to pay cess on royalty in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) had to be given effect to and implemented by the certificate officer.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

M/S. Steel Authority Of India Limited ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2023

6. From the perusal of the writ petition, this Court find that the petitioner had challenged the certificate proceedings on the ground that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court vide judgement passed in civil appeal no. 4803-4808 (District Mining officer and others versus Tata Iron and Steel company limited) and ultimately on 30.01.2023 it was submitted that the aforesaid judgement has no bearing in the present case and now a petition seeking amendment of the writ petition has been filed challenging the very levy of 'cess on surface rent' stating it to be without jurisdiction.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Jignesh Kanjibhai Patel vs Mumbai / Nhava Sheva on 30 October, 2014

The honble High Court also considered the decision of the honble apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. (supra) and District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron & Steel (supra) decisions relied upon by the appellants herein. It was held by the honble High Court that, in view of the provisions of Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944, even after omission of Section 3A, the liability of the assessee thereunder would not be wiped out and the question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Petitioner.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha And Anr. vs Smt. Manharbala Jeram Damodar And Ors. on 10 July, 2007

Similarly in District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. the Supreme Court has observed that "the legislation is primarily directed to the problems before the legislature based on information derived from past and present experience. It may also be designed by the use of general words to cover similar problems arising in future." It is then observed that "the legislative intention, i.e. the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed." The Supreme Court then observed that "a statute is an edict of the legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary to seek the intention of its maker. A statute has to be construed according to the intent of them that they make it and the duty of the Court is to act upon the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature".
Bombay High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 32 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

V. Jaya Prakash vs Commissioner Of Municipality, Khapra ... on 24 November, 2003

In District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co, (supra), the Supreme Court considered the question whether Case and Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 validated only the taxes on minerals already realized under invalid law or validated the right to levy tax and realize the same. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question with reference to object for which the Act for the purpose of which it was enacted.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cus. & C. Ex. on 24 December, 2002

Mining Officer and Ors. v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. and Anr., - 2001 (7) SCC 358 is not applicable to the facts of the present matter. The CESS and Other Tax on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1993 was enacted by the Parliament as it thought that on account of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the State Government would be liable to make refund of CESS and other taxes collected by them, which was likely to have serious impact on the State Revenue and to prevent the liability of refund, the Parliament intended to validate collection of levy already made by the State Government up to 4-4-1991. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the said conclusion was based on not only the language used in Section 2(1) but also the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next