Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 331 (3.78 seconds)
Documents citing Federation Of Hotel & Restaurant ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989

Tata Sky Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 October, 2012

In the light of the law declared in the decision reported in (1991) 2 SCC 154 (Spences Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and another V. State of West Bengal and others), we do not think, the decisions reported in (1989) 3 SCC 698 (Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. Vs. Union of India; (1989) 3 SCC 634 (Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India V. Union of India) and 1990 Supp SCC 755 (East India Hotels Vs. State of West Bengal), relied on by the State, would be of any assistance to them.
Madras High Court Cites 163 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Surya Mahal Restaurant Through Prop. ... vs Arshad Khan S/O Shri Mohammad Yamin on 12 November, 2025

2- ,e-,e- [kku gksVy cuke lqesj flag] vihy la[;k&227@2022] fu.kZ; fnukad 22-06-2023] jktLFkku jkT; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx] t;iqj 09- izLrqr'kqnk uthjksa dk llEeku v/;;u fd;k x;k] mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 10- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd bl ekeys esa izn'kZ&1 lw;Z egy gksVy dk osV fcy gS] tks fnukad 07-09-2012 dks tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlesa osVj ds lkeus iSfdax 'kCn vafdr gSA bl fcy ds tfj;s 100@&:i;s dh Fkkyh] mldh iSfdax ds 8@&:i;s vkSj iSDM okWVj dk ewY; 45@&:i;s vafdr gS vkSj bl izdkj [kkus dk ewY; vkSj iSfdax dk ewY; feykdj 108@&:i;s ij 5-40 :Ik;s dk osV fy;k x;k gS] tcfd cksry dk ewY; 45@&:i;s ij 6-75 :Ik;s osV fy;k x;k gS vkSj fcy dk dqy ewY; 165-15 :Ik;s gqvk gSA i=koyh ij nwljk nLrkost ml cksry ds QksVks dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks izR;FkhZ@ifjoknh }kjk vihykFkhZ@foi{kh ds ;gka ls [kjhnh xbZ Fkh] ftl ij cksry dks iSd djus dh fnukad 26-07-2012 crkbZ xbZ gS vkSj ml ij cSp uacj vafdr gksdj ewY; 17@&:i;s vafdr gSA 11- vihykFkhZ@foi{kh }kjk izLrqr uthj Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Vs. Union of India And Ors. ds iSjk uacj 14 esa Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ds varxZr cus :Yl ds :Yk 3 dh vksj gekjk /;ku vkd`"V dj ;g crk;k gS fd ml psIVj ds izko/kku vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrkvksa vkSj laLFkkxr miHkksDrkvksa ij ykxw ugha gksx a sA laLFkkxr miHkksDrkvksa esa gksVYl vkSj lfoZl baLVhV~;w'kal dks 'kkfey fd;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZ@foi{kh }kjk izLrqr 5 jktLFkku jkT; miHkksDrk vk;ksx] t;iqj vihy la[;k&323@2024 lw;Z egy jsLVksjVsa cuke vj'kn [kku vU; uthj ITC Limited Vs. K.C. Khanna esa Legal Metrology Act, 2009 dh /kkjk 18¼1½ vkSj mlds varxZr cus gq;s fu;eks]a 2011 dk mYys[k djrs gq;s ;g /kkfjr fd;k gS fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUUk fu.kZ;ksa esa mijksDr izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djrs gq;s ;g /kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd Luxurious Hotels and Restaurants esa iznku dh tkus okyh lkexzh muds }kjk iznku dh xbZ lsokvksa dk Hkkx gS vkSj mls foØ; ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA bl uthj esa Hkh Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Vs. Union of India And Ors. dh mijksDr uthj dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g ik;k x;k gS fd gksVyksa esa lsokvksa ds nkSjku can ikuh dh cksry ij gksVy vkSj jsLVksjsaV ml ij vafdr ewY; ls vf/kd dk ewY; olwy dj ldrs gSaA 12- izR;FkhZ@ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr uthj ,e-,e- [kku gksVy cuke lqesj flag dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] ds ekeys esa dksYM fMªad cksry ds 30@&:i;s ,evkjih gksrs gq;s Hkh 35@&:i;s olwy dj fy;s x;s Fks] ds tokc ifjokn esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k Fkk fd [kkuk iSafdax djds Hkh foØ; fd;k tkrk gSA bl vk;ksx }kjk Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Vs. Union of India And Ors. ds fu.kZ; dks Hkh m)`r fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu bl uthj dks blfy;s ykxw gksuk ugha ekuk x;k gS D;ksfa d FkEl vi dksYM fMªad Hkh vU; lkekuksa ds lkFk iSd djkbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj gksVy esa ugha ijkslh xbZ Fkh rks ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/kd olwy dh xbZ 5@&:i;s dh jkf'k] ekufld larki isVs 5]000@&:i;s vkSj ifjokn O;; ds [kpZ ds 3]500@&:i;s fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k dks lgh ekuk x;k vkSj vihy [kkfjt dh xbZA 13- izR;FkhZ@ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr uthj Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited and ors. Vs. Pushpendra Singh ds ekeys esa Hkh 10@&:i;s dh ikuh dh cksry ds 26@&:Ik;s vkSj osV dh jkf'k tksM+dj olwy dh xbZA bl ekeys esa Hkh Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Vs. Union of India And Ors. dh uthjksa dks ykxw gksuk ugha ik;k x;k vkSj bl dkj.k vihy [kkfjt dh xbZA 14- orZeku ekeys esa fcy izn'kZ&1 ls ;g nf'kZr gqvk gS fd izR;FkhZ@ifjoknh us gksVy dh lsokvksa dk ogka ij cSBdj mi;ksx ugha fd;k Fkk vkSj [kkus dks vyx iSd djk;k Fkk] tcfd cksry ij foØ; ewY; 17@&:i;s vafdr Fkk] 6 jktLFkku jkT; miHkksDrk vk;ksx] t;iqj vihy la[;k&323@2024 lw;Z egy jsLVksjVsa cuke vj'kn [kku vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa tc izR;FkhZ@ifjoknh }kjk vihykFkhZ@foi{kh ds gksVy esa cSBdj [kkuk ugha [kk;k x;k] u gh ikuh dh cksry yh xbZ] cfYd [kkus dh Fkkyh vkSj cksry dks iSd djkdj ys x;s rks ,slh fLFkfr esa Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Vs. Union of India And Ors. dk izdj.k bl ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrk gS vkSj nwljk izdj.k ITC Limited Vs. K.C. Khanna okyk ekeyk Hkh orZeku ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ykxw ugha gksrk gS rFkk Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited and ors. Vs. Pushpendra Singh ds ekeys esa bl vk;ksx }kjk vihy esa fn;k x;k fu.kZ; bl ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ykxw gksrk gS] vr% bl dkj.k vihykFkhZ@foi{kh dk ;g dguk fd muds }kjk ikuh dh cksry dk ewY; lgh :Ik ls fy;k x;k gS] lgh izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj blls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ@foi{kh }kjk vuqfpr O;kikj izFkk viukbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj bl dkj.k fo}ku ftyk miHkksDrk vk;ksx }kjk vius fu.kZ; esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapus esa dksbZ =qfV ugha dh FkhA 15- tgka rd ekufld larki dh jkf'k dks fnyk;s tkus dk iz'u gS] fof/kd fLFkfr ;g gS fd ;fn {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k ij C;kt fnyk;k tk pqdk gS rks ekufld larki dh jkf'k ugha fnykbZ tkuh pkfg;sA orZeku ekeys esa {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k vf/kd olwy dh xbZ jkf'k 34-75 :Ik;s gh gS vkSj ml ij fo}ku ftyk miHkksDrk vk;ksx us 09 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt vnk djus dk vkns'k fn;k gS] tks vR;f/kd de jkf'k izrhr gksrh gSA vr% izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds en~nsutj fo}ku ftyk miHkksDrk vk;ksx }kjk ekufld larki isVs fnykbZ xbZ jkf'k 40]000@&:i;s ds vkns'k dks vikLr djrs gq;s ;g jkf'k 5]000@&:i;s rd lhfer dh tkrh gS rFkk 'ks"k vkns'k ;Fkkor j[ks tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA vkns'k vr% vihykFkhZ@foi{kh lw;Z egy jsLVksjsaV }kjk izLrqr vihy fo#) izR;FkhZ@ifjoknh vj'kn [kku vkaf'kd :Ik ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku ftyk miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx] t;iqj f}rh;] t;iqj }kjk ifjokn la[;k 1426@2014 cmuoku vj'kn [kku cuke lw;Z egy jsLVksjsaV esa fo}ku ftyk miHkksDrk vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 22-05-2024 dks ekufld larki isVs fnykbZ xbZ jkf'k 40]000@&:i;s ¼v{kjs pkyhl gtkj :Ik;s½ ds vkns'k dks vikLr 7 jktLFkku jkT; miHkksDrk vk;ksx] t;iqj vihy la[;k&323@2024 lw;Z egy jsLVksjVsa cuke vj'kn [kku djrs gq;s ;g jkf'k 5]000@&:i;s ¼v{kjs ikap gtkj :Ik;s½ rd lhfer dh tkrh gS rFkk 'ks"k vkns'k ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr ds lkFk fo}ku ftyk miHkksDrk vk;ksx dk fjdkWMZ vfoyac okil ykSVk;k tkosA ¼jkefuokl lkjLor½ ¼fueZy flag esM+roky½ lnL; lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ @lk{kh ikjhd@
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Ags Entertainment Private Limited vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2013

95. Reliance was also placed upon yet another decision of Supreme Court in (1989) 3 SCC 634 (Federation of Hotel & Restaurant v. Union of India and others). In the said case, challenge was to the levy of tax under the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987 enacted by Parliament. The Act envisaged a tax at 10 percent ad valorem on chargeable expenditure incurred in the class of hotels, wherein room charges for any unit of residential accommodation are over Rs.400/- per day per individual. The chargeable expenditure included expenditure incurred on payments made in such class of hotels in connection with the provision of accommodation, residential or otherwise, food or drink etc. The challenge was on the ground that Entry 62 in List II conferred exclusive power on the State Legislature to levy tax on luxuries and Entry 54 in List II empowered the State to levy tax on the sale of goods. The contention was that since the expenditure tax and tax on the sale of goods were covered by the Entries in the State List, there was nothing left for Parliament to tax. In the context of the said controversy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Madhu Silica Private Limited And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 28 February, 1991

The differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law. The test could only be one of palpable arbitrariness applied in the context of felt needs of the times and societal exigencies informed by experience. There cannot be any precise or set formulate or doctrinaire tests or precise scientific principles of exclusion or inclusion. [1989] 74 STC 102 (SC) (Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India).
Gujarat High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 4 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

M/S. Madras Hire Purchase Association vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2009

45. The concept of catering, admittedly, includes the concept of rendering service. The fact that tax on the sale of the goods involved in the said service can be levied does not mean that a service tax cannot be levied on the service aspect of catering. Mr Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior for the appellant submitted that the High Court before applying the aspect theory laid down by this Court in the case of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Assn. of India v. Union of India1 ought to have appreciated that in that matter Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution was not considered which is of vital importance to the present matter and that the High Court ought to have differentiated the two matters. In reply, our attention was invited to paras 31 and 32 of the judgment of the High Court in which service aspect was distinguished from the supply aspect. In our view, reliance placed by the High Court on Federation of Hotel and Restaurant and, in particular, on the aspect theory is, therefore, apposite and should be upheld by this Court. In view of this, the contention of the appellant on this aspect is not well founded.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hotel Manasasarovar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 November, 1994

The possibility of enjoying air-conditioning in facility even if such facility is not available by reason of power failure is subjected to tax. We, therefore, reject the contention of Sri Firdos, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14175 of 1991, that the petitioner therein was unjustly sought to be burdened with expenditure-tax even though he consumed food in the non-air-conditioned section of the air-conditioned hotel Shan Bagh. As the propensity to incur wasteful expenditure is sought to be curbed by the impugned legislation, the hotel industry as such is not taxed but the enjoyment potentiality or capacity to incur wasteful expenditure is brought within the purview of the tax net. As observed by Ranganathan J., in his separate but concurring judgment in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India , the object of a tax on luxury is to impose a tax on the enjoyment of certain types of benefits, facilities and advantages on which the Legislature wishes to impose a curb. The idea is to encourage society to cater better to the needs of those who cannot afford them.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - M Sharan - Full Document

Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc ... on 4 March, 2025

31. It is clear therefore that Section 66 read with Sections 65(41)(j) and 67(m-a) in Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 do not seek to levy tax on goods or passengers. The subject-matter of tax under those provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 is not goods and passengers, but the service of transportation itself. It is a levy distinct from the levy envisaged under Entry 56. It may be that both the levies are to be measured on the same basis, but that does not make the levy the same. As was held in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Assn. of India v. Union of India [(1989) 3 SCC 634] :
Delhi High Court Cites 233 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next