Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.32 seconds)
Kerala Distilleries And Allied ... vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ... on 27 November, 1999 cites

Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. ... vs Commercial Tax Officer, Madras & Ors on 9 September, 1997

A reading of the above exhibit would clearly reveal that the Revenue itself was not sure of the legal position and has taken to Mohan Breweries case [1997] 107 STC 212 (SC), decided on September 9, 1997, to issue notices only by July, 1998. This fact itself would clearly indicate that the petitioners cannot be held-guilty of deliberate or dishonest conduct or metis rea. The penalty proceedings in all these cases, in our opinion, are, therefore, vitiated by non-application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside as arbitrary and unreasonable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 20 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

H. Anraj Etc vs Government Of Tamilnadu Etc on 4 October, 1985

51. A careful consideration of the above submissions and the authorities cited would only compel us to hold that if the turnover tax under Section 5(2A)(i)(b) is held excluded on the sales by distilleries within, the State to the Beverages Corporation alone and to operate on all subsequent points of sales, as now prevailing, resulting/discrimination in the impact of taxation attracting Articles 301 and 304 can be avoided, since this discrimination obtains only at the stage of purchase by the Beverages Corporation on excise duty and the exclusion of turnover tax at the point of sale by the manufacturers to the Corporation while declaring it operative at subsequent stages accords with the general scheme under Section 5(1) and serial No. 53 of the First Schedule, since the Schedule itself excludes from sales tax the sale by the petitioners-manufacturers to the Corporation under the Act. It has been held that the protection of Chapter XIII is available in so far as fiscal levies are concerned, which operate as a tariff wall/barrier or operate as a discrimination, as could be seen from [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC) (H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu and AIR 1966 SC 1686 (Kalyani Stores v. State of Orissa).
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 103 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Joint Commercial Tax Officer-Ii, ... vs Ekambareeswarar Coffee And Tea Works on 27 February, 1991

58. Arguing the case with reference to exhibit P8 dated October 23, 1998 in O.P. No. 23008 of 1998, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that assessments already passed under Section 17 of the Act by the assessing authority do not suffer from any error and relate to the assessment on the consideration of sale and if the assessing authority did not assess excise duty as part of turnover, it was a case of escaped turnover independently to be assessed and such an independent order shall also stand separately as held in Joint Commercial Tax Officer-II, Tuticorin v. Ekambareeswarar Coffee and Tea Works [1991] 83 STC 457 (Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - A S Anand - Full Document

Madras Rubber Factory Limited vs State Of Kerala on 29 March, 1989

In support of his contention that the power conferred on two different authorities, viz., the assessing authority and the revisional authority, are distinct and mutually exclusive, he relied on the decisions reported in [1979] 44 STC 208 (Ker) [FB] (Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. State of Kerala), 1976 KLT 382 (SC) (Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum v. Lucy Kochuvareed), (1998) 6 KTR 318 (Devidas Keshava Menon v. State of Kerala), (1998) 6 KTR 415 (K.A. Ammarkunhi Amme v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax) and [1977] 40 STC 444 (Ker) (C.C. Transport Company v. State of Kerala).
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 20 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Atiabari Tea Co., Ltd vs The State Of Assam And Others. And ... on 16 August, 1960

Chapter XIII protects intra-State as well as inter-State trade. Article 401 applies not only to inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse but also intra-State trade, commerce and intercourse. The words "throughout the territory of India" clearly indicate that trade and commerce, whose freedom is guaranteed has to move freely also from one place to another in the same State. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 232, has elaborately dealt with the scope of the above Article 401 in paragraphs 42, 48 and 51. In the conclusion, in para 18 at page 242, the court held that the trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India are not absolutely free, but are subject to certain powers of legislation by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and that the freedom declared by Article 401 does not mean freedom from taxation simpliciter, but does mean freedom from taxation which has the effect of directly impeding the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. It is also held that the freedom envisaged in Article 401 is subject to non-discriminatory restrictions imposed by Parliament in public interest and even discriminatory or preferential legislation may be made by Parliament for the purpose of dealing with an emergency like a scarcity of goods in any part of India, that reasonable restrictions may be imposed by the Legislature of a State in public interest and that non-discriminatory taxes may be imposed by the Legislature of a State on goods imported from another State or other States, if similar taxes are imposed on goods produced or manufactured in that State. Lastly it is stated that the restrictions imposed by existing laws have been continued, except in so far as the President may by order otherwise direct (Article 405). It is thus seen that Articles 301 and 304 frown on discriminatory taxes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 415 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Joint Commercial Officer, Division ... vs Spencer & Co. Etc. Etc on 2 May, 1975

In [1975] 36 STC 188 (SC) (Joint Commercial Tax Officer v. Spencer & Co.), the respondent-Spencer & Co. is the assessee/seller. The Supreme Court was considering Section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 which is in pan materia to Section 2(xxvii) of the KGST Act. The question was whether the 50 per cent sales tax imposed under Section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 collected by the seller from the purchaser was "turnover" taxable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - A C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next