Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (3.61 seconds)
Documents citing Entry Tax Officer vs Chandanmal Champalal & Co on 18 April, 1994

Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. And Anr. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 April, 2003

Indeed, when it was contended by one of the States, State of Karnataka, that the expression sale occurring in Entry 52 should be given its full and normal meaning and should not be confined to sale of goods in a local area for consumption or use therein, the contention was rejected by this Court with reference to the earlier decisions of this Court (See Entry Tax Officer v. Chandanmal Champalal and Co., (1994)4 SCC 463. The said decision refers to and follows the earlier decisions of this Court on the point."
Patna High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R S Garg - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 16 December, 2002

Indeed, when it was contended by one of the States, State of Karnataka, that the expression 'sale' occurring in entry 52 should be given its full and normal meaning and should not be confined to sale of goods in a local area for consumption or use therein, the contention was rejected by this Court with reference to the earlier decisions of this Court [see Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal & Co. [1994] 95 STC 5 ; (1994) 4 SCC 463]. The said decision refers to and follows the earlier decisions of this Court on the point."
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 17 - R S Garg - Full Document

Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... vs Muzaffar Ali Khan on 28 July, 2022

12. A reading of the judgment in Champalal's case (cited supra), it is a case where no special limitation was prescribed under the Act for 3 2002 (4) ALD 711 (DB) 8 ML,J CMSA No.5 to 9 of 2012 recovery of arrears of property tax. By relying upon general limitation under Article 113 of Limitation Act, the Division Bench held that 3 years is the limitation from the date of tax due. It is needless to say that when the special limitation is prescribed under the Act, the general law of Limitation does not apply. In the present case, the limitation of 3 years was only prescribed in respect of mode of recovery by way of distraint warrant, and for prosecution, 6 years and to file a suit, 9 years is prescribed.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Laxman - Full Document

Greater Hyderabad ... vs Muzaffar Ali Khan on 28 July, 2022

12. A reading of the judgment in Champalal's case (cited supra), it is a case where no special limitation was prescribed under the Act for 3 2002 (4) ALD 711 (DB) 8 ML,J CMSA No.5 to 9 of 2012 recovery of arrears of property tax. By relying upon general limitation under Article 113 of Limitation Act, the Division Bench held that 3 years is the limitation from the date of tax due. It is needless to say that when the special limitation is prescribed under the Act, the general law of Limitation does not apply. In the present case, the limitation of 3 years was only prescribed in respect of mode of recovery by way of distraint warrant, and for prosecution, 6 years and to file a suit, 9 years is prescribed.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Laxman - Full Document

Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... vs Muzaffar Ali Khan on 28 July, 2022

12. A reading of the judgment in Champalal's case (cited supra), it is a case where no special limitation was prescribed under the Act for 3 2002 (4) ALD 711 (DB) 8 ML,J CMSA No.5 to 9 of 2012 recovery of arrears of property tax. By relying upon general limitation under Article 113 of Limitation Act, the Division Bench held that 3 years is the limitation from the date of tax due. It is needless to say that when the special limitation is prescribed under the Act, the general law of Limitation does not apply. In the present case, the limitation of 3 years was only prescribed in respect of mode of recovery by way of distraint warrant, and for prosecution, 6 years and to file a suit, 9 years is prescribed.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Laxman - Full Document

Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... vs Muzaffar Ali Khan on 28 July, 2022

12. A reading of the judgment in Champalal's case (cited supra), it is a case where no special limitation was prescribed under the Act for 3 2002 (4) ALD 711 (DB) 8 ML,J CMSA No.5 to 9 of 2012 recovery of arrears of property tax. By relying upon general limitation under Article 113 of Limitation Act, the Division Bench held that 3 years is the limitation from the date of tax due. It is needless to say that when the special limitation is prescribed under the Act, the general law of Limitation does not apply. In the present case, the limitation of 3 years was only prescribed in respect of mode of recovery by way of distraint warrant, and for prosecution, 6 years and to file a suit, 9 years is prescribed.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Laxman - Full Document

Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... vs Muzaffar Ali Khan on 28 July, 2022

12. A reading of the judgment in Champalal's case (cited supra), it is a case where no special limitation was prescribed under the Act for 3 2002 (4) ALD 711 (DB) 8 ML,J CMSA No.5 to 9 of 2012 recovery of arrears of property tax. By relying upon general limitation under Article 113 of Limitation Act, the Division Bench held that 3 years is the limitation from the date of tax due. It is needless to say that when the special limitation is prescribed under the Act, the general law of Limitation does not apply. In the present case, the limitation of 3 years was only prescribed in respect of mode of recovery by way of distraint warrant, and for prosecution, 6 years and to file a suit, 9 years is prescribed.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Laxman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next