Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 125 (2.45 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. & Anr on 28 September, 2004

The India Cements Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 22 December, 2006

24.6. Of course an argument was advanced on behalf of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited that on account of the benefit of waiver given to them, they had not collected sales tax from the consumers as per the terms of the Eligibility Certificate and therefore, they should not be made liable for the sales tax on the basis of the corrigendum for the period during which they had not collected sales tax. But, we are unable to appreciate the same. The circumstances under which M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited having availed the benefit of waiver of sales tax scheme, had not collected sales tax from the customers are of no consequence, as the primary liability to pay sales tax is on the seller. Therefore, the Government is entitled to recover the sales tax, irrespective of the fact that the beneficiary of the scheme might have lost the chance of passing the liability to pay sales tax on the purchaser. This again takes us to the root of the issue, viz., whether the denial of the benefits of the waiver of sales tax scheme for non-compliance of the qualifications prescribed in clause (10) read with Clause (13) of the eligibility certificate is justified and sustainable in law; which we have already answered in favour of Hindustan Motors Limited as the parameter adopted by the SIPCOT for determining the BPV and BSV conferring the benefit of waiver scheme is illogical, irrational, arbitrary and therefore, illegal as the production of the diversified unit, viz., Lancer Cars, is totally different from that of the existing unit, viz., Earth Moving equipments. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, to uphold the object of the new industrial policy and to give effect to the object of the scheme in letter in spirit, the Government is under a statutory obligation to consider the case of Hindustan Motors Limited on merits, treating the diversified unit as a new unit and to grant appropriate relief, because such an exercise cannot be done by this Court while exercising the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because power to grant such appropriate relief requires to be decided based on several materials and details, both relating to production and sale, which are sought to be achieved under the new industrial policy and also requires a careful appreciation of the same before taking appropriate decision in the matter, which power, in our considered opinion is fully within the domain of the State and cannot be usurped by us, by exercising the power of judicial review, whatever the reason may be. [State of Rajasthan v. J.K.Udaipur Udyog Ltd., (2004) 7 SCC 673].
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

M/S.Grt Regency vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... on 11 October, 2022

In State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Udyog Limited, 1972 (30) STC 565 the question that arose was whether the assessee was guilty of falsely representing that the goods purchased were covered by the Registration Certificate. The Supreme Court expressed the view that unless it is shown that the assessee had made such a false representation Section 10-A would not stand attracted. In that case, the Board of Revenue as well as the High Court had come to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate which he claimed. The State disputed that decision and went before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, “Assuming, without deciding, that the view taken by them (Board of Revenue and the High Court) is incorrect, even then it is impossible to say under the circumstances of the case that the respondent (assessee) was guilty of making any false representation.” The view taken by the Supreme Court in that case was where there is a possibility of two view in the matter as to whether the goods purchased are covered by the registration certificate or not, the mere 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD).No.14084 of 2017 issue of a C form certificate by the assessee without any further circumstance or material will not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has made false representation.”
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Shaffiq - Full Document

Mrs.Bezawada Supriya, vs The Govt on 3 March, 2022

From the State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and Anr (referred supra), para 25 was quoted by the Apex Court in order to arrive at a conclusion that the recipient of an exemption granted by a fiscal statute would have no legally enforceable right against the Government inasmuch as such right is a defeasible one in the sense that it may be taken away in exercise of the very power under which the exemption was granted. What was missed from that case was the very next paragraph which states as follows:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 254 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document

WP(C)/113/2020 on 31 October, 2022

118. It is contended that in Para 25 of the State of Rajasthan (Supra) was quoted by the Apex Court in order to arrive at a conclusion that the recipient of an exemption granted by a fiscal statute would have no legally enforceable right against the Government inasmuch as such right is a defeasible one in the sense that it may be taken away in exercise of the very power under which the exemption was granted. The W.P(C) No. 2208 of 2019 & Ors Page 117 of 153 learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, however refers to Para 26 of the said Judgment which is extracted as under:-
Gauhati High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - S Saikia - Full Document

The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By vs Tvl.Nu Tread Tyres on 27 July, 2006

In Sri Lakshmi Machine Works v. The State of Madras, (cited supra) a Division Bench of this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Udyog Limited, (cited supra) has held that mere representation based on a bona fide belief will not bring an assessee within the mischief of that provision. The representation, in order to come under that provision, should be a false representation to the knowledge of the assessee. If a belief is entertained by the assessee bona fide that the goods are covered by the certificate of registration, but it ultimately turned out to be not a proper understanding of the certificate of registration or correct understanding of the same, it will not attract the provisions of Section 10(b) of the Act. The use of the word "falsely" itself implies that the person making the representation knew that the certificate of registration does not cover that item, but knowing fully well that it does not, states that it is covered. What is required plainly under section 10(b) is knowledge that the item is not covered by the certificate and the representation that it is covered by the certificate.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 19 - A P Shah - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Through Its ... vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax on 9 March, 2006

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Udyog Limited reported in 30 STC, 565 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court had a occasion to consider Section 10(b) read with Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act In that case dealer was registered for Machinery and has issued Form-C for purchase of Earth Moving Machinery comprising Bulldozers, Dumpers and tipping Wagons, paying the preferential rate of tax. Assessing Authority levied penalty on the ground that in respect of the aforesaid goods, dealer was not entitled for the benefit of preferential rate. The levy of penalty was confirmed up to the stage of Board of Revenue. In reference, the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that in respect of the above goods, dealer was entitled to preferential rate Matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next