Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (0.53 seconds)
Jyothi Home Industries vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 21 February, 1986 cites

State Of Karnataka & Anr vs M/S. Hansa Corporation on 25 September, 1980

Sri Srinivasan contends that this is a judicial recognition of, and pronouncement on, the inherent dissimilarities of different local areas and the imperative to tailor-out different quantum of tax to different local areas, and that any uniform levy would necessarily be violative of article 14. Sri Srinivasan contended that these were not general observations but were pronouncements on a point which directly arose for consideration in the appeal before the Supreme Court. He stated that contention 16 formulated in the High Court judgment in Hansa Corporation's case ILR (1980) 1 Kar 165 pertains to this question and that point was considered at para 77 of the High Court's judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 73 - D A Desai - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976

80. Section 7(1)(a) substitutes a new definition of "local area" with its enlarged implications, in section 2(5) of the Principal Act in substitution of the old definition. We are of the view that, this substitution does not involve the implication of two sequential steps, first, that the old section 2(5) is repealed and, secondly that a new provision is introduced in the place of the repealed provisions and the argument that though the second stage of substitution fails to take effect, the first stage of repeal is effectuated with the result that there would be no subsisting definition of "local area" at all is, accordingly, excluded. (See State of Maharashtra v. C. P. Manganese Ore Co., Ltd. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 53 - M H Beg - Full Document

B. N. Tiwari vs Union Of India & Others on 10 December, 1964

Questioning the appositeness of this observation to the present case, Sri Srinivasan had two things to say : First was that the context of those notifications were different. The second was that, at all events, the view taken in Titaghur's case as to the continuance of the "superseded" notification so far as past liabilities are concerned, is against the law laid down by larger Benches of the Supreme Court in Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid v. State of Madras , B. N. Tewari v. Union of India and that we are required to follow the latter cases in preference to the principle in Titaghur's case .
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 40 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

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

"....... The position with regard to the laws to which article 255 applies, therefore, is that if the assent in question is given even after the Act is passed, it serves to cure the infirmity arising from the initial non-compliance with its provisions. In other words, if an Act is passed without obtaining the previous assent of the President, it does not become void by reason of the said infirmity; it may be said to be unenforceable until the assent is secured. Assuming that such a law is otherwise valid, its validity cannot be challenged only on the ground that the assent of the President was not obtained earlier as required by the other relevant provisions of the Constitution. The said infirmity is cured by the subsequent assent and the law becomes enforceable ...... vide para-16) Sri Srinivasan, however, relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam .
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 415 - B P Sinha - Full Document

M.P. V. Sundararamier & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh& ... on 11 March, 1958

"13. The source of the legislative power to levy sales or purchase tax on goods is entry 54 of List II of the Constitution. It is well-settled that subject to constitutional restrictions a power to legislate includes a power to legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. In this regard legislative power to impose tax also includes within itself the power to tax retrospectively. See Union of India v. Madan Gopal Kabra , M. P. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh , J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. Union of India , Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar . In the last mentioned case it was specifically decided that where the legislature can make a valid law, it can provide not only for the prospective operation of the material provisions of the said law but it can also provide for the retrospective operation of the said provisions."
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 369 - Full Document

Firm A. T. B. Mehtabmajid And Co vs State Of Madras And Another on 22 November, 1962

Questioning the appositeness of this observation to the present case, Sri Srinivasan had two things to say : First was that the context of those notifications were different. The second was that, at all events, the view taken in Titaghur's case as to the continuance of the "superseded" notification so far as past liabilities are concerned, is against the law laid down by larger Benches of the Supreme Court in Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid v. State of Madras , B. N. Tewari v. Union of India and that we are required to follow the latter cases in preference to the principle in Titaghur's case .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 159 - R Dayal - Full Document

M/S. R. M. D. C. (Mysore) Private Ltd vs The State Of Mysore on 8 August, 1961

In R.M.D.C. (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. State of Mysore the Supreme Court held that a resolution of the State Legislature under article 252 enabling the Parliament to enact a law on "betting and gambling" under entry 34, List II, did not denude or take away the State power to impose a tax on "betting and gambling" under entry 62, List II, as the latter was a separate head of legislation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next