Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing I.T.C. Limited Through Sri Jagdish ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 15 January, 2004

Adhunik Power And Natural Resources ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 28 February, 2023

In the case of I.T.C. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1994(1) BLJR 1988, it has, inter alia been held that a fair and equitable rent has to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and not in terms of the directives issued by the State of Bihar from time to time under the Khas Mahal Manual. In the said judgment it has also been held that the circular dated 21.5.1983 applies only the management of Khas mahal land. The aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench in the case referred to above was delivered and it was held that the aforementioned 27 circular applies only to Khas mahal estates and therefore, it cannot be said that in relation to fixation of rent in all other lands, the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act must necessarily be taken into consideration. In other words, all that is necessary, is that the respondents must necessarily act fairly and reasonably in matters relating to fixation of rent. So far as charging of salami in the present case is concerned, the same cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is no provision nor the respondents have brought any such provision on record to satisfy this Court, that they had the right or that they had the authority to fix salami of Rs.1,72,500/-." The judgment passed by this Court while interpreting the circular dated 21.05.1983 has been pleased to hold that there cannot be any imposition of salami or commercial rent on the basis of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953 and therefore, the fixation of commercial rent on the basis of the aforesaid circular dated 21.05.1983 has been held to be without jurisdiction.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Jagannath Dudadhar on 26 February, 2007

7. We should also briefly notice the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in I.T.C. Limited v. State of Bihar [2004] 137 STC 15 which was pronounced one year prior to the authoritative Shri Krishna Judgment of the Supreme Court. The Bihar Finance Act, 1981 provided for the levy of tax on the sale and purchase of goods in Bihar. The Bench observed that any provision either under the Act or the Rules calculated to prevent evasion of tax on intra- state sales would be within the power of the State Legislature, which could not, however, make any law with regard to inter-state sale or commerce or in the course of export. The Bench thereafter noted that the purpose behind carrying a Declaration Form is for verification and assessment of tax payable as well as for the prevention of evasion of tax.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Mallik vs Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 2012

30. This Bench has decided similar issue of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer on transfer of case. Similar issue (in the case of ITC Limited Vs. State of Bihar & others in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 592 of 2007 decided on 18th January, 2012) was raised in which also case was transferred from one Assessing Officer to Patna High Court MA No.120 of 2006 29 29 /30 another Assessing Officer under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The ground of challenge to the jurisdiction was alleged vagueness and omnibus nature of order of transfer. In that case the case was transferred under Section 9 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act and the point was raised that the Commissioner had a power to direct transfer of case from one authority to another authority but it must relate to a specific proceeding and that if the transfer was omnibus transfer without any specification, the whole order of transfer was bad. This Court considered the judgment in the case of Pannalal Binjraj Vrs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1957 SC 397 in which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that at a belated stage the issue of jurisdiction can not be allowed to be raised. This Court refused to entertain the objection and rejected the same by holding that the jurisdictional point should be raised at the earliest opportunity and can not be allowed to be raised after decision by final court of facts or even before the appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Patna High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Mallik Enterprises vs Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 2012

30. This Bench has decided similar issue of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer on transfer of case. Similar issue (in the case of ITC Limited Vs. State of Bihar & others in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 592 of 2007 decided on 18th January, 2012) was raised in which also case was transferred from one Assessing Officer to Patna High Court MA No.120 of 2006 29 29 /30 another Assessing Officer under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The ground of challenge to the jurisdiction was alleged vagueness and omnibus nature of order of transfer. In that case the case was transferred under Section 9 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act and the point was raised that the Commissioner had a power to direct transfer of case from one authority to another authority but it must relate to a specific proceeding and that if the transfer was omnibus transfer without any specification, the whole order of transfer was bad. This Court considered the judgment in the case of Pannalal Binjraj Vrs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1957 SC 397 in which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that at a belated stage the issue of jurisdiction can not be allowed to be raised. This Court refused to entertain the objection and rejected the same by holding that the jurisdictional point should be raised at the earliest opportunity and can not be allowed to be raised after decision by final court of facts or even before the appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Patna High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Mallik Enterprises vs Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 2012

30. This Bench has decided similar issue of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer on transfer of case. Similar issue (in the case of ITC Limited Vs. State of Bihar & others in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 592 of 2007 decided on 18th January, 2012) was raised in which also case was transferred from one Assessing Officer to Patna High Court MA No.120 of 2006 29 29 /30 another Assessing Officer under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The ground of challenge to the jurisdiction was alleged vagueness and omnibus nature of order of transfer. In that case the case was transferred under Section 9 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act and the point was raised that the Commissioner had a power to direct transfer of case from one authority to another authority but it must relate to a specific proceeding and that if the transfer was omnibus transfer without any specification, the whole order of transfer was bad. This Court considered the judgment in the case of Pannalal Binjraj Vrs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1957 SC 397 in which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that at a belated stage the issue of jurisdiction can not be allowed to be raised. This Court refused to entertain the objection and rejected the same by holding that the jurisdictional point should be raised at the earliest opportunity and can not be allowed to be raised after decision by final court of facts or even before the appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Patna High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document
1