Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Hotel Elite And Ors. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 23 October, 1987

Haroon M. Adam vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 8 October, 1999

27. In the present case, the Legislature has clearly made separate classifications of India-made sugar and sugar not manufactured or made in India which includes imported, foreign-made, sugar. That is the object of entry 79 of Schedule I and subsequently incorporated entry 70A of Schedule IV. India-made sugar has been made tax-free, while the other sugar has been made taxable, be it under entry 1 of Schedule VII or under entry 70A of Schedule IV. From the principles already discussed, it is well-settled that the Legislature is free to do such classification for the purpose of taxation. If we apply the two tests laid down by the Supreme Court, we see that India-made sugar constitutes a uniform or identical type of sugar, to which class imported, foreign-made, sugar does not belong. Similarly, sugar not made or manufactured in India does not include any India-made sugar. Therefore, here the classification is founded on geographical base, and one group or class of sugar does not include any sugar of the other group or class. The second test is whether there is a nexus of such classification with the object which the statute seeks to achieve. The object of 1994 Act is to collect revenue for running the State. The Legislature, in its wisdom and discretion, has chosen to make indigenous sugar tax-free but has chosen to levy tax on sugar which is not manufactured or made in India, namely, on foreign-made sugar which is imported into West Bengal and sold there. In our opinion, such classification is constitutionally valid and conforms to Article 14.
State Taxation Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 53 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Desai Brothers Papers (P) Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 24 December, 2002

4. The petitioners relied on a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court in support of their contentions. The decisions relied on are mainly on the question of retrospective amendment. The decision by this Court cited by the petitioners is that of Hotel Elite v. State of Kerala, (1998) 69 STC 119. That was a case where a retrospective amendment introducing turnover tax was not enforced by virtue of the concession made by the Advocate General on behalf of the State before the Court and the Court accepted the same. This position cannot be canvassed as a proposition against validity of retrospective amendment.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - C N Nair - Full Document

Khadi Grama Vyavasaya Association ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 17 February, 2006

3. The petitioners contended that all KV industries should be exempted from payment of sales tax. It was contended that withdrawal of exemption is against the principles of promissory estoppel and it was further contended that there is no justification for discriminating 21 KV industries with other industries. All industries under KV sector should also be given exemption which was given to 21 KV industries and classification and distinction made between those industries are illegal. The learned single Judge, after considering the matter, found that there is clear discrimination in giving different treatment to 21 industries to "nil" rate of sales tax and four per cent sales tax to other KV industries. The learned single Judge based on the decision of the apex Court in Khadi and Village Soap Industries Association v. State of Haryana [1994] 95 STC 355 and of this Court in Hotel Elite v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 119, held that levying of tax based on annual turnover is valid, it should not be enforced as it remained only for a short period and it was modified by Notification No. 291 of 2000 and even if Notification No. 291 of 2000 is set aside, Notification No. 1090 of 1999 should not be enforced and held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Khadi Grama Vyavasaya Association vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2003

5. What is clear from the various notifications above referred is that Government does not want to grant exemption indefinitely to all KV Industries, but was only trying to identify such of the KV Industries which should enjoy complete exemption and balance Industries should be subjected to tax at least at a concessional rate. However, apparently the Government took inconsistent stand on various occasions and have obviously handled the matter in an indifferent and inconsistent manner, Even though KV Industries with turnover of rupees twenty five lakhs and above were identified as capable of paying tax and notification SRO 293/98 was issued effective from 1.4.1998, the Government withdrew the introduction of tax by SRO 644/98 by stating that restriction in the form of tax for KV Industries with annual turnover of rupees twenty five lakhs and above would adversely affect such Industrial units. It is not known as to how and on what basis within a short time the Government found that the KV Industries with annual turnover of rupees twenty five lakhs and above will be affected on account of levy of sales tax on their products especially when even small scale Industries and other dealers are liable to pay tax under the Act if their annual turnover is rupees two lakhs and above and every dealer including KV Industries are allowed to pass on the tax to the Buyers through collection. Moreover the classification of dealers based on annual turnover has been upheld by courts as a reasonable basis for the levy of tax. Refer to the decision of this Court in Hotel Elite and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 69 STC 119 and that of the Supreme Court in Khadi & Village Soap Industries Association v. State of Haryana, (1994) 95 STC 355 (SC). Apparently after being convinced about the mistake committed in issuing SRO 644/98 the Government re-introduced tax on KV Industries with annual turnover of rupees ten lakhs and above vide SRO 1090/99 effective from 1.1.2000. Strangely the Government does not rest there also but proceeds to shift its stand in three months by amending SRO 1090/99 by SRO 291/00 whereunder exemption was provided for the products of twenty one KV Industries and providing tax for all other KV Industries, but simultaneously reducing the rate of tax on products of KV Industries to 4 per cent, vide notification SRO 292/00. Probably the Government has not again changed its stand on account of filing of the Writ Petitions and pendency of the same in this Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - C N Nair - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Taj Garden Retreat on 20 December, 2002

12. The Supreme Court also in Kerala Hotel & Restaurant Association v. State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 913 the view expressed by this Court in Hotel Elite's case [1988] 69 STC 119. (1987) 2 KLT 959. The Tribunal has also referred to the fact that in F.L.3 licence the heading of the licence itself is "hotel (restaurant) licence" and that the licence provides for sale of every kind of foreign liquor which can be sold to residents in the hotels and to guests or to casual visitors eating in the hotel and that this is the only licence for retail sale of liquor in a hotel or restaurant. The assessee in this case was issued F.L.3 licence with effect from April 1, 1998. On the basis of the afore-mentioned discussion, we have necessarily to hold that the assessee, who was issued only F.L.13 licence during the relevant period in question, cannot be classified as "Bar attached Hotel" and hence, the order of the Deputy Commissioner in revision taking a contrary view is not valid or justifiable.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P R Raman - Full Document
1