Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (2.66 seconds)
Documents citing Dai-Ichi Karnataka Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2000

Realstrips Limited vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2022

6.4.7 In Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited Vs. Union of India and Others [(2000) 4 SCC 57] the Supreme Court observed that the mere fact of laying the Page 49 of 76 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:54:48 IST 2022 C/SCA/4495/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2022 notification before the Parliament does not make substantial difference as regards jurisdiction of the court to pronounce its validity. In that case it was notification under Section 25 of Customs Act required to be laid before the Parliament under Section 159 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

M/S.Raju Construction vs The Government Of India on 30 November, 2022

16. Mr.S.Rajasekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.24996 of 2019 and others, has drawn attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, (2000) 4 SCC 57. The main attack is on the public interest involving in withdrawal of exemption. It is submitted that there are no records to substantiate if any public interest at all was involved while issuing the impugned Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax, dated 01.03.2015 withdrawing the exemption in Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated 20.06.2012. A reference was made to paragraphs 11, 12 & 13 of the above decision which reads as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

M/S.Raju Construction vs The Government Of India on 30 November, 2022

16. Mr.S.Rajasekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.24996 of 2019 and others, has drawn attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, (2000) 4 SCC 57. The main attack is on the public interest involving in withdrawal of exemption. It is submitted that there are no records to substantiate if any public interest at all was involved while issuing the impugned Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax, dated 01.03.2015 withdrawing the exemption in Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated 20.06.2012. A reference was made to paragraphs 11, 12 & 13 of the above decision which reads as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Madho Singh And Anr. vs State Of Raj. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001

In (51) Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1741 and Consumers Action Group (supra) and (52) Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 8 SCC 633, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a very wide discretionary power has been conferred upon the statutory authority, the Authority must exercise its power in a most reasonable manner in accordance with the spirit of the statute and in public interest.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 52 - Cited by 7 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Adani Exports Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 23 July, 2004

32.3 However, in the subsequent decision in Dai-ichi Karkaria Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2000) 4 SCC 57 relied upon by Mr Dave for the petitioner, the Court was concerned with a controversy somewhat similar to the controversy in the above two cases, but on different facts. The Court held that the Government had failed to discharge the burden of justifying reduction of the extent of exemption. By notification dated 10.9.1982 (which stated that it would be in force till 10.9.1987), the Government of India exempted from payment of customs duty/ additional duty all raw material and components imported for the manufacture of goods to be supplied to various organizations such as International Development Association... ... ONGC, OIL or GAIL. By notification dated 30.12.1986, the Central Government exempted raw materials and components required for the manufacture of the goods to be supplied to ONGC or GAIL from payment of customs duty in excess of 25% ad valorem and the whole of the additional duty. By another notification dated 30.12.1986, it was notified that the notification dated 10.9.1982 stood amended by omitting the words "or Oil and Natural Gas Commission or Oil India Limited or Gas Authority of India Limited". As a result thereof, the appellant who was manufacturer and supplier of certain goods to ONGC became liable to pay duty to the extent of 25% for the period between 30.12.1986 and 10.9.1987. The Apex Court struck down the notification dated 30.12.1986 reducing the exemption on the ground that the policy of the Government of India was to indigenise production as is the policy of the ONGC also to indigenise. The appellant had secured orders for supply of goods against global tenders where foreign suppliers also participated and in the teeth of international competition, the appellant had been awarded the contracts by ONGC; that pursuant to the exemption that had been granted, the appellant had invested since 1983 a large amount of money in respect of its plant for manufacture of goods to be supplied to ONGC; that public interest which prompted the Government of India to issue exemption notification dated 10.9.1982 remained unaltered and no new supervening circumstances had justified reversal of the said policy and, in fact, such a reversal to encourage foreign manufacturers at the cost of Indian manufacturers is per se contrary to public interest and a drain on foreign exchange.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 5 - M S Shah - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Sharma And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 21 May, 2004

94. Again in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Dai-Ichi Karlkaria Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 57, the Supreme Court considered the scope of interference in a notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, which was held to be a legislative power. The tests for questioning a subordinate legislation were again reiterated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 which is reproduced below :
Allahabad High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 401 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Shree Jagannath Packers And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 14 September, 2004

Mr. Parija submitted that in Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Union of India (2000) 4 SCC 57 ; (2000) 119 ELT 516, the Supreme Court after considering the affidavit filed by the Government for issuing the impugned notification purportedly in the public interest held that the Government has failed to discharge its statutory obligations while issuing the impugned notifications and the justifications offered were far too naive to be accepted and the reasons set out does not carry the case of the Government further at all and so holding struck down the impugned notifications. Mr. Parija argued that in the present case also the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government does not make out a case for withdrawal of the sales tax benefits which were granted under the IPR 1996 for various purposes such as harnessing Orissa's vast natural resources and potential for accelerated industrial growth, attracting and facilitating large investments in infrastructure and industries, generating employment in industrial/commercial activities, developing backward areas/regions of the State through industrial and mining ventures, strengthening the rural economy through development of agro-industries, small industries, village and cottage industries, etc., stimulating and strengthening local entrepreneurial base and developing skill/expertise in the State of Orissa.
Orissa High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 1 - A K Patnaik - Full Document
1   2 3 Next