Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 91 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Coastal Container Transporters ... on 26 February, 2019

M/S.Kishore Granites Pvt.Ltd., vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 March, 2021

Subsequently as directed by this Court, the authorities have supplied the alert note, as well as the Government memo also. Despite the same, the petitioners have not submitted their explanation so far. Hence left with no option consequential orders were passed by the authorities. It is not in dispute that as per section 23(b) of M.M.D.R.Act any gazetted officer of the Central or State Government authorized by the Central 35 Government in this behalf by general or special order has reason to believe that any mineral has been raised in contravention of provisions of this Act or Rules, he may search for such mineral document or thing and the provisions of section 100 of CPC. Accordingly the Vigilance and Enforcement officers have every power as per the said section to inspect and conduct investigation. Hence the inspection conducted on 23.11.2019 and 24.11.2019 by the Assistant Geologist, O/o the Assistant Director, Mining in the presence of mining manager of the petitioner and based on the statements issued, the employees of the petitioner's company the report has been submitted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, through alert note, to the Government and based on the same, the Government has requested the 2nd respondent to initiate action. Hence there is no specific directions by the Government to the 2nd respondent, it is only a request to take appropriate action as per rules. Further the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that when, there is an alternative remedy, against the show cause notice, the writ petition is not maintainable and to support his contention he relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Bank of India & others v Coastal Container Transporters Association & others11
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - D Ramesh - Full Document

Sahitya Mudranalaya Private Limited ... vs Additional Director General on 29 January, 2020

5.4 It was submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Coastal Containers Transporters' Association, (supra) does not lay down that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is not maintainable in law. It was contended that the judgment is peculiar to the facts of that case wherein there were factual disputes; the disputes regarding classification of Page 13 of 60 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 17:02:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/20748/2018 JUDGMENT services rendered required consideration of the facts of each case depending on the nature of services rendered and the contract entered into.
Gujarat High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - H Devani - Full Document

M/S Sony India Pvt Ltd vs State Of Raj And Ors on 17 September, 2019

Applying the ratio of all the aforesaid judgement, especially in Coastal Container Transporters Association, supra, we are inclined to hold that the present one cannot be said to be a case where the Assessing Officer completely lacked the jurisdiction in passing the reassessment order. It certainly cannot be said to be a (Downloaded on 24/09/2019 at 09:12:06 PM) (28 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Aside of the fact whether or not the re-assessment order could have been legally passed, the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that such orders have been passed dehors the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, show cause notices were served on each of the appellants prior to passing of the impugned reassessment orders. The case of the appellants cannot also said to be fall in any category of exceptions including about breach of any fundamental right where the remedy available in the Act of 2003 under the scheme of the Statute cannot be considered as effective and efficacious, particularly in the face of the fact that similarly situated assessees in many such identical cases, including some of the petitioners, have already approached the appellate authority and first appellate authority and thereafter the Tax Board and almost in all of them, penalty has been waived and number of sales tax revisions, as referred to above, then have been filed by the assessee before this Court, which are still pending. Moreover, as has been argued by learned counsel for the revenue that in one matter, the Tax Board has decided in favour of the assessee, apart from penalty, even on the question of tax and interest and subsequently when many other appeals were filed before the Board, a reference on the questions of law involved in these cases has been made to the Full Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board. This is therefore an additional reason for this Court to refrain from entertaining the writ petition as the Rajasthan Tax Board has yet to take an authoritative view in the matter on the Full Bench reference.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sony India Pvt Ltd vs State Of Raj And Ors on 17 September, 2019

Applying the ratio of all the aforesaid judgement, especially in Coastal Container Transporters Association, supra, we are inclined to hold that the present one cannot be said to be a case where the Assessing Officer completely lacked the jurisdiction in passing the reassessment order. It certainly cannot be said to be a (Downloaded on 24/09/2019 at 09:12:01 PM) (28 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Aside of the fact whether or not the re-assessment order could have been legally passed, the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that such orders have been passed dehors the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, show cause notices were served on each of the appellants prior to passing of the impugned reassessment orders. The case of the appellants cannot also said to be fall in any category of exceptions including about breach of any fundamental right where the remedy available in the Act of 2003 under the scheme of the Statute cannot be considered as effective and efficacious, particularly in the face of the fact that similarly situated assessees in many such identical cases, including some of the petitioners, have already approached the appellate authority and first appellate authority and thereafter the Tax Board and almost in all of them, penalty has been waived and number of sales tax revisions, as referred to above, then have been filed by the assessee before this Court, which are still pending. Moreover, as has been argued by learned counsel for the revenue that in one matter, the Tax Board has decided in favour of the assessee, apart from penalty, even on the question of tax and interest and subsequently when many other appeals were filed before the Board, a reference on the questions of law involved in these cases has been made to the Full Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board. This is therefore an additional reason for this Court to refrain from entertaining the writ petition as the Rajasthan Tax Board has yet to take an authoritative view in the matter on the Full Bench reference.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar Son Of Late Shri Jwala ... vs State Bank Of India on 23 January, 2020

assessment order could have been legally passed, the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that such orders have been passed (D.B. SAW/146/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 10:42:24 AM) (5 of 5) [CW-17670/2018] dehors the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, show cause notices were served on each of the appellants prior to passing of the impugned reassessment orders. The case of the appellants cannot also said to be fall in any category of exceptions including about breach of any fundamental right where the remedy available in the Act of 2003 under the scheme of the Statute cannot be considered as effective and efficacious, particularly in the face of the fact that similarly situated assessees in many such identical cases, including some of the petitioners, have already approached the appellate authority and first appellate authority and thereafter the Tax Board and almost in all of them, penalty has been waived and number of sales tax revisions, as referred to above, then have been filed by the assessee before this Court, which are still pending. Moreover, as has been argued by learned counsel for the revenue that in one matter, the Tax Board has decided in favour of the assessee, apart from penalty, even on the question of tax and interest and subsequently when many other appeals were filed before the Board, a reference on the questions of law involved in these cases has been made to the Full Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board. This is therefore an additional reason for this Court to refrain from entertaining the writ petition as the Rajasthan Tax Board has yet to take an authoritative view in the matter on the Full Bench reference."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

M/S Baroda Surgical (India) Pvt. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2020

In the aforesaid background, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent no. 2 has submitted that questioning the validity of the show cause notice at this stage, without filing reply by the petitioners, requires no interference by the court and in support this Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 21:14:15 IST 2020 C/SCA/7832/2020 JUDGMENT submission, she relied on the decision of Union of India Vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association, reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-SC-6397, wherein, it was observed that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at the stage of show cause notice. On the basis of the above submission, it is prayed that the court may not entertain the petition.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - I J Vora - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next