Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)

Joara Sugar Mills Private Ltd. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 24 September, 1963

In reply, learned Attorney General appearing for the union of India asserted the authority of Parliament to enact the law in question by saying that as held by the supreme Court in, Diamond Sugar Mills' case, AIR 1961 sc 652 (supra) there was no entry in tne State List or tne Concurrent List under which the various Acts enumeratea in Section 2(b) of the Act imposing the cess could fall; and that, therefore, a legislation with regard to the imposition and collection of those cesses on sugarcane could valloly be enacted by Parliament under Article 248 read with Entry 97 of List I. It was said that though the Act was described as an "Act to validate the imposition and collection of cesses on sugarcane under certain State Acts", it was in SUDS-tance a legislation not validating the imposition and collection made under State Acts, but one imposing under tne legislative sanction of Parliament cesses at the rate in the manner imposed, assessed or collected by tna various States under the relevant State Acts, and sne imposition in any State was for the period before tne commencement of the Act in that State during which tne cess was imposed, assessed or collected unaer trie State Act, albeit invaiidly; and that Parliament had the power to make a retrospective imposition of a tax and to pass a legislation for that purpose having effect tor a short period.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P. Gangadharan Pillai vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 14 August, 1967

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1961 Madh Pra 282 took the view that a Government Official cannot be said to be an independent person for the purpose of section 9 of the Act. The decision of Sinha J. was reversed on appeal by a Division Bench (See AIR 1964 Cal 519) Bost C. J. and Mitter J. were not prepared to endorse the proposition that Government servants cannot be regarded as 'independent' members. The Chief Justice was of the view that the expression independent used in section 9 of the Act, connoted only persons independent of employers and employees.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1