Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 321 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Sales Tax,Uttar ... vs The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd on 31 October, 1960

Moolchand Purushottam Patel vs Sales Tax Officer on 25 November, 1971

26. This remark with greatest respect is also in the context of the discussion of the above argument. There was no provision in that Act prohibiting the collection of tax which was followed by penalty. In the absence of such prohibition the penalty was unconnected with the objects of taxing law or tax. It was clear that the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act wanted to confer powers on the sales tax authorities to collect from a dealer the amount which was collected "otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act", although the Act itself did not prohibit any person from so collecting the amount. Similarly, in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. [[1970] 25 S.T.C. 155 (S.C.)], the above decision of the Supreme Court in R. Abdul Quader's case was held applicable to the facts of that case, which arose under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as the amount which was being collected under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act in that case, was also not an amount the collection of which was prohibited and penalised under the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rajan Ghoshal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 May, 2002

15. The fiscal statute has to be interpreted very strictly. This is an established principle and proposition of law. It was so held in Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. v. Modi Sugar Mills Limited, . Similar view was taken in series of decisions of the Apex Court. It would be unnecessary to multiply the citations for this established principle of law. In the present case, the interpretation that I have ascribed to attempt to export improperly in Section 113, Customs Act, does not seem to travel beyond the strict interpretation of the fiscal statute. We may remember that attempts are being made to obtain undue advantage of a scheme by over-invoicing and under-packaging. This is not only jeopardizing the export prospect for which the incentives are allowed, but also costing the state exchequer. Unscrupulous exporters are draining out the state exchequer by unscrupulously realising duty drawback facilities. Over-invoicing, under-packaging or exporting of goods of no value, are counter-productive to export promotion. The duty drawback policy is conceived only to promote export and earn foreign exchange. The over-invoicing or shortage of packages or exportation of goods without any commercial value, would not enable earning of foreign exchange and as such the incentive is being misused. This is putting the state to double jeopardy, by draining out the state exchequer and, at the same time, non-earning of foreign exchange and even jeopardizing the whole export prospect.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document

Pan India Paryatan Limited, A Company ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 December, 2006

28. We also hold that in response to question whether Section 3(2) is applicable to amusement parks, the provision has not expressly been excluded nor indicated exclusion of amusement parks defined in Section 2(a-1) of the Act. It is imperative to consider the ratio in paragraph No. 11 of Sale Tax Commissioner v. Modi Sugar Mills (Supra), where the Supreme Court has held that taxing statutes cannot be interpreted on the basis of as nswered as mentioned hereinabove.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Murali Cafe on 19 November, 1970

12. The observations of Shah, J., in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961]. 12 S.T.C. 182 (S.C.) do not answer the question involved, as there is nothing to suggest from the substituted proviso that the levy of tax at the altered rate is only in respect of sales taking place after 1st August, 1963. That was a case where there was a notification altering the rates of tax and in the face of the language employed in that notification, sales anterior to the date specified could not be affected.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bechu & Company vs Asst. Commissioner (Assessment) on 8 April, 2003

It is settled that interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The Court must look squarely at the words of me statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed: it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statutes so as to supply any assumed deficiency (Sales Tax Commissioner v. Modi Sugar Mills (AIR 1961 SC 1047). It is relevant in this context to note that wherever Legislature wanted to refer to registered trade mark/brand name holders they have said so as is evident from entry 105 of the First Schedule to the Act - Pappad, appalam and similar other items by whatever name called, sold under brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
Kerala High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 6 - G Sivarajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next