Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 198 (2.79 seconds)
Documents citing Sodhi Transport Co. & Anr. Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 March, 1986

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. vs The State Of Punjab on 22 December, 2000

22. The challenge to the vires of the sub-section (6)(ii) of Section 14-B on the ground that the same imposes unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on trade and business or their right to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse also deserves to be rejected in view of the proposition laid down in Sodhi Transport Co. and another v. State of U.P. and another (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - N Singh - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S D.P. Metals on 4 October, 2001

Following the decisions of this Court in cases of Sodhi Transport Co. and others (supra), Delite Carriers (supra), Indian Roadways Corporation (supra) Sarna Transport Corporation (supra) and Tripura Goods Transport Association (supra) we hold that the provisions of Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 are valid and the impugned decision of the High Court in this regard is not correct. These appeals, except Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 2001, are accordingly allowed. Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 2001 is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 94 - Full Document

D.P. Metals vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2000

(iv) Where the goods transit starts from outside the State and the goods are also to be delivered outside the State but pass through another State during the course of its journey, it comes within the scope of ancillary and incidental matter to require a transporter to obtain a transit pass at the entry point where the goods first enter such State through whom they are only to pass and to surrender such transit pass at the exit point within reasonable period ; and it is also incidental thereto to raise a rebuttable presumption on failure to surrender the transit pass at any exit point within the prescribed time that the goods have been sold by the transporter within the State so as to subject the transporter to sales tax laws of the State as dealer which presumption can be rebutted by the transporter by leading evidence to the contrary. [Sodhi Transport's case [1986] 62 STC 381 (SC) ; AIR 1986 SC 1099].
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 72 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Secretary vs Ballarpur Industries Limited on 6 July, 2010

20. The reliance upon the provisions of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act or upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Sodhi Transport Co. vs. State of U.P., (supra) in this respect is misconceived. The Hon'ble Apex Court has found that such presumption is not itself an evidence but only makes a prima facie case for party in whose favour it exists. It only indicates the person on whom burden of proof lies. In para 15, it has been noticed that the fact A which has relevance in the proof of fact B and inherently has some degree of probative or persuasive value in that behalf may be weighed by a judicial mind after it is proved and before a conclusion is reached as to whether fact B is proved or not. The learned Member of Industrial Court has undertaken that exercise and noted that production of copies of stray charge sheets (not even originals) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:36 ::: 35 was not sufficient to infer that Standing Orders allegedly settled on 28.07.1954 were being used by Respondent No. 1 - employer to regulate the working or discipline. Non availability of original registers with the office of Labour Commissioner and copies of charge sheets cannot, therefore, lead to an inference that Standing Orders as contained in printed book were certified on 28.07.1954 under C.P. Act. The evidence of attempted amendment to certified standing orders is also not sufficient to infer this. I am, therefore, not in a position to disagree with the finding reached by the learned Member of Industrial Court in its order dated 24.08.2009. The employer like Respondent No. 1 could have produced several documents to show use of certified standing orders after 1954 till August 2009. In any case, I have already found above that even if such certified standing orders are presumed to exist, they are not saved by virtue of Section 2-A of the Central Act. The proviso to Section 2-A(1) expressly saves only Standing Orders certified under Central Act which have come into operation under Central Act. The second requirement is that such certified Standing Orders must come into force ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:36 ::: 36 before coming into operation of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1957. The Central Act itself has become applicable to industry of Respondent No. 1 in June 1967 and hence even that requirement is not met in present situation.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Supreme Road Transport Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 July, 2014

In support of his submissions, Mr. Purnendu Singh has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. R S Jhaver (AIR 1968 SC 59); of The Check Post Officer, Coimbatore vs. K P Abdulla & Brothers (AIR 1971 SC 792); of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1986 SC 1099); of T Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 6 SCC 545], of State of Haryana vs. Sant Lal [(1993) 91 STC 321 (SC)]; and of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1970) 25 STC 211 (SC)] .
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 62 - Cited by 1 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Suraj Transport Roadways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 July, 2014

In support of his submissions, Mr. Purnendu Singh has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. R S Jhaver (AIR 1968 SC 59); of The Check Post Officer, Coimbatore vs. K P Abdulla & Brothers (AIR 1971 SC 792); of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1986 SC 1099); of T Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 6 SCC 545], of State of Haryana vs. Sant Lal [(1993) 91 STC 321 (SC)]; and of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1970) 25 STC 211 (SC)] .
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Suraj Transport Roadways Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 July, 2014

In support of his submissions, Mr. Purnendu Singh has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. R S Jhaver (AIR 1968 SC 59); of The Check Post Officer, Coimbatore vs. K P Abdulla & Brothers (AIR 1971 SC 792); of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1986 SC 1099); of T Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 6 SCC 545], of State of Haryana vs. Sant Lal [(1993) 91 STC 321 (SC)]; and of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1970) 25 STC 211 (SC)] .
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Shiva Transport Co. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 July, 2014

In support of his submissions, Mr. Purnendu Singh has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. R S Jhaver (AIR 1968 SC 59); of The Check Post Officer, Coimbatore vs. K P Abdulla & Brothers (AIR 1971 SC 792); of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1986 SC 1099); of T Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 6 SCC 545], of State of Haryana vs. Sant Lal [(1993) 91 STC 321 (SC)]; and of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1970) 25 STC 211 (SC)] .
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document

M/S Naviya Technologies & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 July, 2014

In support of his submissions, Mr. Purnendu Singh has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. R S Jhaver (AIR 1968 SC 59); of The Check Post Officer, Coimbatore vs. K P Abdulla & Brothers (AIR 1971 SC 792); of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1986 SC 1099); of T Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 6 SCC 545], of State of Haryana vs. Sant Lal [(1993) 91 STC 321 (SC)]; and of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1970) 25 STC 211 (SC)] .
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Nto Logistic Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 July, 2014

In support of his submissions, Mr. Purnendu Singh has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. R S Jhaver (AIR 1968 SC 59); of The Check Post Officer, Coimbatore vs. K P Abdulla & Brothers (AIR 1971 SC 792); of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1986 SC 1099); of T Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 6 SCC 545], of State of Haryana vs. Sant Lal [(1993) 91 STC 321 (SC)]; and of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1970) 25 STC 211 (SC)] .
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next