Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi vs East India Hotels Ltd. And Anr. on 9 September, 1997

J.Anusuya (Died) vs The Commissioner on 28 April, 2022

“As regards the other question dealt with by the appellate authority also we are of the opinion that having regard to the decisions of this Court in Dewan Daulet Raj Kappor etc., Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Anr., etc. (1980 (8) SCR 607) and Dr.Belbir Singh & Ors. etc., Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (1985 (2) SCR 439), the appellate authority was right in holding that determination of the annual rental value for the purpose of assessment of property tax should be made in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 6 of the Act. We are unable to hold that in the case of the hotel of respondent No.1 the principles laid down in Section 6 of the Act cannot be applied and, the provisions of Section 9(4) of the Act can be resorted to.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

U.P. Pollution Control Board And Others vs M/S. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. And ... on 24 January, 2001

In Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. East India Hotels Ltd. And another [(1998) 9 SCC 662] the appellant authority charged sales tax on the sales thereof prior to the judgment of this Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi [(1978) 4 SCC 36]. A fresh assessment order was passed thereafter on the basis of the revised return filed by the first respondent. Ultimately an order was passed holding that the first respondent had made application for refund of the excess amount paid within the permissible period. When no action was taken for long period, a writ petition was filed praying for writ of mandamus directing the authority to refund the amount with interest thereon. The High Court allowed the writ petition finding that no further consideration was required and that the defence of unjust enrichment was not maintainable. On the facts of the case, this Court allowed the appeal and directed the Sales Tax authorities to hear the first respondent on the refund application and dispose of the same within a given time. It appears that other cases referred to above were not brought to the notice of this Court. Thus we find that the said case governs its own facts. Hence we reject the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as to the maintainability of the writ petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 86 - S V Patil - Full Document
1