Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 87 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr. Etc on 6 May, 1983

Shree Fats And Proteins Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 December, 2001

4. That Section 9(2A) was amended retrospectively, validity of which was considered in Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. Union of India [1983] 53 STC 289. The said decision is not an authority in respect of provisions of Section Section 9(2B) which was inserted only with effect from May 12, 2000. Even the question in this case was different from the present case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chennai Textile Chemicals Private Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 30 April, 1998

23. Great amount of fuss has been made by everyone of the counsel who projected the challenge successively by contending that the provision as incorporated by Tamil Nadu Act No. 25 of 1993 does not leave any discretion with the assessing authority exercising quasi-judicial powers to independently and objectively assess the guilt and thereby impose a penalty commensurate with the guilt of the dealer concerned. It was also contended for the petitioners that a penal provision like the one under consideration and its enforceability must be inevitably linked with the guilty mind of the dealer concerned and it is not that every lapse or default, irrespective of even the bona fides involved in the same, could be rendered punishable with the levy of penalty. In substance, the gravamen of the attack was that the element of mens rea could not be totally eliminated from consideration in the matter of levy of penalty under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and having regard to the earlier decisions of this Court as also the apex Court, which declare that the element of mens rea also should be taken into account in the matter of fixing the liability for penalty notwithstanding the scheme underlying Section 12(3) of the Act as introduced by Tamil Nadu Act No. 25 of 1993, the assessing authorities must be held to still possess the power to go into the culpability or otherwise of the dealer or take into account the element of mens rea before either deciding to levy penalty or in arriving at the quantum of penalty to be levied in an individual case. The submissions on behalf of the petitioners in this regard cannot be countenanced in view of the decision (Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. Union of India), wherein it has been held in unmistakable terms that a penalty imposed by the sales tax authority is only civil liability, though penal in character.
Madras High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Malhotra And Another vs Ashok Kumar Jain And 3 Others on 21 December, 2017

The law laid down in the aforequoted two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Narasimhan, (supra) and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) still holds good and is also supported by judgments in the Collector of Customs, Madras(supra), Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ors.Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 951, Bajaya Vs. Gopikabai and Anr. 1978(2) SCC 542 (para 26), M Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr.1979 (2) SCC 529, Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand and Ors Vs. Union of India and Anr. 1983(3) SCC 529, Ujagar Prints(II) Vs. Union of India 1989(3) SCC 488 (paras 93 and 94), State of Kerala Vs. Attsse (Agro Industrial Trading Corpn.) 1989 Supp.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Malhotra And Another vs Ashok Kumar Jain And 3 Others on 21 December, 2017

The law laid down in the aforequoted two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Narasimhan, (supra) and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) still holds good and is also supported by judgments in the Collector of Customs, Madras(supra), Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ors.Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 951, Bajaya Vs. Gopikabai and Anr. 1978(2) SCC 542 (para 26), M Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr.1979 (2) SCC 529, Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand and Ors Vs. Union of India and Anr. 1983(3) SCC 529, Ujagar Prints(II) Vs. Union of India 1989(3) SCC 488 (paras 93 and 94), State of Kerala Vs. Attsse (Agro Industrial Trading Corpn.) 1989 Supp.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

T.T.V. Dhinakaran vs Dy. Director, Enforcement Directorate on 17 September, 2002

I have already referred to the dictum of the Supreme Court in Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. Union of India, ; and in Sova Ray v. Gostha Gopal Dey, wherein Their Lordships have held that though the expression "penalty" is an elastic term with many different shades of meaning but it always involves an idea of punishment. Thus, the penalty in this case is penal in character and it is not compensatory in nature, nor is it contractual. Such a penalty could never be one that is contemplated under Section 9 (2) of the PTI Act and it could never be equated to a non-payment of a decree debt nor the person not paying the penalty or penalty could be characterised as a debt.
Madras High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 4 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

T.T.V. Dhinakaran vs Dy. Director on 17 September, 2002

I have already referred to the dictum of the Supreme Court in Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1984 S.C.1194; and in Sova Ray v. Gostha Gopal Dey, reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 981 wherein Their Lordships have held that though the expression "penalty" is an elastic term with many different shades of meaning but it always involves an idea of punishment. Thus, the penalty in this case is penal in character and it is not compensatory in nature, nor is it contractual. Such a penalty could never be one that is contemplated under Section 9 (2) of the PTI Act and it could never be equated to a non-payment of a decree debt nor the person not paying the penalty or penalty could be characterised as a debt.
Madras High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Torrent Power Ltd vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2022

Shiv Dutt Rai's case (supra) dealt with a penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court upheld the retrospective operation of the newly added Sub-section (2A) of Section 9 and held that it did not contravene the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that it has to be presumed that all the tax had been collected by the dealers from their customers. There was also no dispute that the law requires the dealer to pay the tax within a specified time, the dealers had also knowledge of the provisions relating to penalty in the General Sales Tax law of the respective States.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

English Indian Clays Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 17 September, 2004

6. I have considered the rival submissions. So far as the legislative competence and the validity of the provision of Section 9(2), 9(2A) and 9(2B) of the CST Act are concerned the very question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Dutt Rai Fatheh Chand & Anothers' case (supra), where the Supreme Court after due consideration of the relevant matters including the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Khemka's case (supra) upheld the validity of the aforesaid provision and even the validation Act has been upheld. In the said case the following contentions were raised.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

The Arvind Mills Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 28 October, 1983

One of the contentions urged before the Supreme Court in Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand's case (supra) was that the lacuna in the Central Sales Tax Act, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Khemka's case (supra) that there was no specific provision levying penalties in the Act as it stood before the amendment in 1976, remained unfilled up even after the amendment, and hence, no penalties could be recovered by utilising the provisions of the General Sales Tax Laws of the respective States. Negativing this contention, Venkataramiah, J., speaking for the Court, held that the entire argument was misconceived and ruled as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next