Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 144 (4.38 seconds)
Documents citing Southern Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. Etc on 1 September, 1981

Venkataramana Rice And General ... vs Government Of A.P., Legislative ... on 25 September, 1998

27. Even Article 286 of the Constitution imposes restriction on the State Government for levy of any tax on the sale or purchase of goods which took place outside the State or in the course of importing or exporting of goods out of Indian territory. It is true that the State Legislature cannot trench upon the field reserved for the Parliament under List-I of the VII Schedule. As already seen, Entries 13 and 14 of List-II as well as Entry 27 of the said list, clearly authorise the State Legislature to make appropriate legislation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Legislature has trenched upon the field reserved for the Parliament. From this decision reported in Southern Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals v. State of Kerala (supra), the following passage can be usefully extracted.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs Collector Of Raigad & Others on 15 October, 1998

Thus the decision in Southern Pharmaceuticals case which has been followed in Synthetics judgment clearly shows that the State has the power to levy excise duty on rectified spirit. In our opinion, Rule 8 is a regulatory measure and otherwise also a reasonable restriction to avoid misuse of rectified spirit. Under the circumstances, the challenge raised to the legislative competence of the State Government in enacting Rule 8 is liable to be rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A P Shah - Full Document

I.T.C. Ltd. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 May, 1985

The above decision arose out of proceedings taken under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966. With respect, it is not possible to agree with the above observation that there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee and the element of quid pro quo in the stricto senso is not always a sine qua non for a fee in view of my learned brother Sen's approval in Southern Pharmaceutical and Chemical's case (supra) of the i (1) [1983] 3 S.C.R. 843.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 161 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next