Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 213 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay Prakash D. Mehta & Anr vs Collector Of Customs (Preventive), ... on 16 August, 1988

Madura Coats Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 9 September, 1996

A perusal of Section 11AA makes it clear that the said section deals at the stage of assessment proceedings after the duty has been assessed or the penalty has been levied and in order to safeguard the interest of the Revenue an obligation is cast to pay the amount assessed or the penalty levied, within certain period and if they are not paid within three months, an interest at the rate not below 10% and not exceeding 30% is payable. Whereas Section 35B confers a statutory right of appeal to the aggrieved party. The procedure to entertain the appeal is given under Section 35F. It is clear that the right of appeal conferred by Section 35B is subject to the procedures given under Section 35F. As observed by the Supreme Court in Vijaya Prakash and Jawahar v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay - , the right of appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. It is not the law that adjudication by itself following the rules of natural justice would be violative of any right-constitutional or statutory without any right of appeal, as such. If the Statute gives a right to appeals upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfillment of these conditions that the right becomes vested and exercisable to the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - 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

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2004

17. Lastly we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in VIJAY PRAKASH D MEHTA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), BOMBAY, (1989) STC 324 on which strong reliance was placed in M.E.C. WIRES to hold that there is no inherent power to stay in proceedings under Section 23 and 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. In VIJAY PRAKASH MEHTA, the Supreme Court was considering the provisions of Section 129A and 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 129A provides for appeals. Section 129E required the person desirous of filing an appeal, pending appeal, to deposit with the proper officer the duty demanded or the penalty levied. The proviso thereto provided for dispensation with such deposit by the appellate authority. Considering the said provisions, the Supreme Court held "The right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant.. If the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfillment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in and exercisable by the appellant.
Karnataka High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - R Gururajan - Full Document

Har Devi Asnani vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 September, 2011

matter of the instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties. The proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, however, states that no such reference shall be made by the registering officer unless an amount equal to fifty per cent of the deficit duty arrived at by him is deposited by the party concerned. This proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by P. Laxmi Devi and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that 13 this proviso was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and was unconstitutional. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, however, filed an appeal by special leave before this Court against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and this Court held in para 18 at page 735 of [(2008) 4 SCC 720] that there was no violation of Articles 14, 19 or any other provision of the Constitution by the enactment of Section 47-A as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 8 of 1998 and that the amendment was only for plugging the loopholes and for quick realisation of the stamp duty and was within the power of the State Legislature vide Entry 63 of List-II read with Entry 44 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. While coming to the aforesaid conclusions, this Court has relied on The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra), Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and Another vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay (supra) and Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others (supra) in which this Court has taken a consistent view that the right of appeal or right of revision is not an absolute right and it is a statutory right 14 which can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant made by the statute. 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Har Devi Asnani vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 September, 2011

matter of the instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties. The proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, however, states that no such reference shall be made by the registering officer unless an amount equal to fifty per cent of the deficit duty arrived at by him is deposited by the party concerned. This proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by P. Laxmi Devi and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that this proviso was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and was unconstitutional. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, however, filed an appeal by special leave before this Court against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and this Court held in para 18 at page 735 of [(2008) 4 SCC 720] that there was no violation of Articles 14, 19 or any other provision of the Constitution by the enactment of Section 47-A as amended by the Andhra 1. Pradesh Amendment Act 8 of 1998 and that the amendment was only for plugging the loopholes and for quick realisation of the stamp duty and was within the power of the State Legislature vide Entry 63 of List-II read with Entry 44 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. While coming to the aforesaid conclusions, this Court has relied on The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra), Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and Another vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay (supra) and Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others (supra) in which this Court has taken 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 statute. 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 1. the right of revision illusory and is within the legislative power of the State legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 203 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

M/S Mahesh Kumar Singla And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 March, 2017

"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] and Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad [(1999) 4 SCC 468] in which this Court has taken 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 statute. 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 48 - Cited by 5 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

K.M.Corporation vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2007

Reference was also made to another decision of this Court in Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), (1988) 4 SCC 402, where Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., speaking for the Court, said: (SCC p. 406, para 9)  9 . Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - K R Pandian - Full Document

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Rfeeka Sultan And Ors. on 26 September, 2000

16. Having given serious consideration to the question involved in this matter, it can be said that the Claims Tribunal are constituted under a special Act, which provides for licensing of drivers of motor vehicles, licensing of conductors of stage carriages, registration of motor vehicles, control of transport vehicles, special provisions relating to State Transport undertakings; construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles; control of traffic, motor vehicles temporarily leaving or visiting India, liability without fault in certain cases, insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks; Claims Tribunal; offences, penalties and procedure and miscellaneous provisions under various Chapter. The Claims Tribunals are Civil Court, since they determine civil rights and liabilities. They are not Civil Court constituted under Civil Procedure Code. It provides for appeal against the order(s) and award(s) of Claims Tribunal in certain circumstances. Where appeal is not provided, recourse to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be justified. The right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice. It is a statutory right and it can be circumvented by the conditions in the grant. If a statue gives a right to appeal under certain conditions that right becomes vested and exercisable by the appellant (See : Vijay Prakash & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, AIR 1988 SC 2010. It may or may not provide for further remedy against order passed in appeal. Since it has not provided for revision, legislative intent cannot be set at naught by challenging the order or award of the Claims Tribunal under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Doing so would tentamount to mock at law enacted by the legislature.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next