Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing A.V. Meiyappan, Sole Proprietor Of ... vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, ... on 8 March, 1967

Unknown vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 18 October, 2022

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.A.SR.No.79295 of 2021 in the case Ellora restaurant, rep by its Proprietor vs. Commissioner of Police and anr., in which this Court after considering Ram Kishan Fauji case held that the nature of right, which is violated, has to be taken into account and the authority, passed the order, cannot be the sole determining factor. Therefore, just because the Commissioner of Police is exercising powers, it cannot be said to be a matter of criminal in nature.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parekh Automobiles And Ors. vs Municipal Council And Anr. on 28 January, 1977

22. So far as the first point is concerned, I may say that there is no privity of obligation between the petitioner and the Municipal Council. The petitioner's firm was not the person from whom the Municipal Council has realised the octroi. It is rather a stranger in a way. There being no privity of obligation between the petitioner and the Municipal Council, the petitioner cannot ask for a refund of the money which it has not paid to the Municipal Council The privity of obligation if any is between the respondent No' 2 and the Municipal Council and the respondent No. 2 could make a demand in accordance with law for refund. It is settled position of law that the person who is to apply for refund and who is entitled to such refund is the person who had paid the octroi lax. Even in common law only a person who had paid a tax can ask for its refund if he is statutorily entitled to it. I am supported in this view of mine by a decision of the Madras High Court viz. M.A. Khadtr v. Deputy Commercial Taxes Officer 1970 (25) STC 104. That case related to a sale tax matter. In that case the assessee was the person who made a claim for refund of the sales tax. The assessee was not however the person who had paid the sales tax. The claim of the assessee for refund was refused by the Tax Officer on the ground that he could not claim the refund as he did not pay the sales tax. Obviously in this case the petitioner did not pay the octroi directly to the Municipal Council. It was the respondent No. 2 who had paid the octroi The petitioner therefore is not entitled to refund of the octroi not paid by him to the Municipal Council. There is no provision for refund in the Municipal Act or the Rules which enables the petitioner to claim refund even though he has not paid it to the Municipal Council.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1