Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 414 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing India Cement Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu Etc on 25 October, 1989

J.K. Construction Engineers And ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi) Through ... on 28 February, 2006

We also record our express dissent with that part of the judgment in Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd. (2001) 1 SCC 91 which says (vide para 12 of SCC report) that there was no "typographical error' in India Cement [India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N. and that the said conclusion that royalty is a tax logically flew from the earlier paragraphs of the judgment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 118 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation vs Commissioner Of Gst&Cce(Trichy) on 20 June, 2024

So it cannot be claimed that a new decision is taken in Kesoram's case by a five member bench than the one delivered in the India Cements case by seven member case. It is submitted that the contention of the assesse that now the issue has been referred to nine member bench and the India Cements decision and has not been stayed is not sustainable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Central ... on 9 January, 2024

So it cannot be claimed that a new decision is taken in Kesoram's case by a five member bench than the one delivered in the India Cements case by seven member case. It is submitted that the contention of the assesse that now the issue has been referred to nine member bench and the India Cements decision and has not been stayed is not sustainable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Orissa And Others vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. And Others on 21 April, 1995

The respondents also took up the plea that some of the observations in Goodricke case are not in accord with India Cement's case and the Orissa Cement's case. We are of the view that it is unnecessary to consider the rival pleas on this score, since we have held that the levy under Orissa Rural Employment, Education and Production Act, 1992 is not on land, but on minerals and mineral rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Universal Agencies vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 February, 1995

7. Reliance was placed upon a decision reported in Ramco Cement Distribution Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 51 STC 171. According to the facts arising in the case, the assessees sold cement, the sale and distribution of which were subject to the Cement Control Order, 1967, and the regulations made thereunder, to various customers. The goods were despatched on "freight to pay" basis. They allowed deduction in their invoices to the extent of the actual freight payable up to the railway station of the customer's place. The questions were whether they could claim deduction in respect of the freight charges, packing charges collected and excise duty on packing materials from the total turnover liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970. While answering these questions, this Court held as under :
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - T J Chouta - Full Document

A.P. Small Scale Granite Industries ... vs The Government Of A.P. Industries & ... on 9 September, 2002

77. The contention that MFF does not fall in any of the liabilities under the Act and the Rules and APMDC cannot charge any fee other than the statutory fees does not merit consideration. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in India Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. That was a case where Section 115 of the Madras Panchayats Act which imposed cess on royalty payable on extraction of mineral was challenged as ultra vires the Constitution. By majority, it was held that royalty is a tax and as such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty is beyond the competence of the State legislature because Section 9 of the Central Act covers the field and the State legislature is denuded of its competence under Entry 23 of List II. As already held the true nature of MFF is quid pro quo for utilizing the surface of the land belonging to a private owner and it cannot be construed as cess on seigniorage fee or dead rent. Further the act does not prohibit the land owner from stipulating a consideration for permitting another person to enjoy the surface of the land owned by him.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 October, 2024

In India Cements Ltd. & Others Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Others [(1990) 1 SCC 12], a Constitutional bench (Seven Judges) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was required to examine the sustainability of imposing cess on royalty money payable on mining leases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that royalty is a tax and by including royalty within the meaning of land revenue, the legislature has exceeded its legislative competence and hence imposition of cess on royalty is incompetent. However, the Supreme Court has later held that royalty is not a tax and that it is a payment made to recompense the lessor of the mining land for the depletion in the mineral due to mining operations.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next