Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Shyam Kishore And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ... on 3 September, 1992 cites

Anant Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 21 January, 1975

In Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. which is an appeal from the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the Anant Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. XIV : 1973 GLR 826 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider vires of Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Muncipal Corporations Act (Bombay Act 59 of 1949) as amended by Gujarat Acts No. 8 of 1968 and No. 5 of 1970 to the entertainment of the appeal by a person who had not deposited the amount of tax due from him and who had not been able to show to the appellate judge that the deposit of the amount would cause him undue hardship arising out of his own omission and deafult. A disability or disadvantage arising out of a party's own default or omission cannot be taken to be tantamount to the creation of two classes offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution, especially when that disability or disadvantage operates upon all persons who make the default or omission. The High Court had taken the view that there was a discrimination between an appellant who deposited the tax and an appellant who did not, which is the necessary consequence of the condition requiring deposit of the amount of tax, which was unreasonable and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Setting aside the view of the Gujarat High Court Khanna, J. speaking for the Supreme Court at pages 246 to 248 observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 222 - Full Document

Vijay Prakash D. Mehta & Anr vs Collector Of Customs (Preventive), ... on 16 August, 1988

33. Similarly in Vijay Prakash D. Mehtal/Sh. Jawahar O. Mehta v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the right of appeal created under Sections 129A and 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal provided was against the duty demanded or penalty levied under the Customs Act. The provision for appeal contemplated a condition for deposit of the duty or the penalty pending the appeal. Same plea was taken that the provision for deposit of duty or penalty pending appeal whittled down the appellant's right of appeal and is ultra vires. The Supreme Court speaking through Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 190 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Collector Of Customs & Excise,Cochin & ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967

34. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin and Ors. v. A.S. Bava . In this case Section 35 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 conferred a right of appeal which was sought to be whittled down by applying the provisions of Section 129 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, containing a requirement of pre-deposit but with a power in the appellate authority to dispense with it in appropriate cases. This Court held that the attempt of the Central Excise Act went beyond the powers conferred on the Central Government in this behalf.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 79 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Elora Construction Company vs The Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Bombay ... on 22 February, 1979

43. This was the meaning which the Supreme Court has given to the word 'entertained' in the aforesaid decision. This was also the word used in the Ellora Construction Co. case and Chatter Singh Baid case referred to earlier. However, the expression used in the opening part of Section 170 of the statute before us is that 'no appeal shall be heard or determined under Section 169 unless. The question is: what the interpretation to be placed on these words?
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Wire Netting Stores vs Regional Provident Funds Commissioner ... on 19 February, 1970

In Wire Netting Stores v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1987 Lab. I.C 1015 a decision of the Delhi High Court (to which one of us was a party), the lack of a provision conferring an effective right of appeal against determination of damages under the Employees' Provident Fund Act was held violative of the provisions of the Constitution. That decision is the subject matter of an appeal which is still pending in this Court. It is fortunately not necessary, for the purposes of the present case, to enter into that area in view of the construction which we propose to place on Section 170(b). We shall now turn to that question.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs M.K. Mohammed Kunhi on 11 September, 1968

40. We have set out the terms of Section 170(b) earlier. This has been interpreted by the Corporation to mean that an appeal preferred by an assessee has to be dismissed in limine unless the tax in dispute has been paid and that there is no scope for the appellate authority exercising any powers of stay pending disposal of the appeal. Prima facie, the contention of the Corporation that to read a power in the District Judge to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal will run counter to Section 170(b) appears to be well founded. Though the normal rule is that the incidental and ancillary powers of an. appellate authority will include a power to grant stay of the order under appeal -vide, Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi AIR 1969 S.C. 430 that power cannot be read into Section 170(b) for such an interpretation would render Section 170(b) totally unworkable. An argument was addressed before us that such a power can be ascribed to the District Judge in view of the provisions of Section 457 of the Act reproduced earlier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 478 - A N Grover - Full Document

Punj Sons (P.) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 14 December, 1981

Reliance was placed on the Single Bench's decision of the Delhi High Court in Punj Sons (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1982 R.L.R. 247 where a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court took the view that the District Judge, in view of Section 457 of the Act, has powers to take recourse to Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC in the appeal under Section 169 of the Act. With all due respect we do not agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the said case. In fact in the judgment under appeal all the three Judges have also dissented from this view of the learned Single Judge in the matter of Punj Sons. The reason is simple as Section 457 itself states that the procedure provided in the CPC in regard to suits are to be followed "as far as it can be made applicable". The other provisions of the statute totally bars the grant of such relief. The other provisions have to be harmoniously read with it and not in derogation thereto. Section 457 itself, therefore, does not help the assessee whose case depends entirely on the construction to be placed on Section 170(b). But still one has to examine Section 170(b) carefully to see whether, short of dismissing an appeal for default of payment of tax, the District Judge has any latitude in the matter.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd vs Asstt. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur & Anr on 12 September, 1967

In like situations, other statutes such as the one considered by this Court in Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and those contained in certain other enactments like the Bombay and Calcuta Municipal Acts specifically prohibit the very entertainment of the appeal if the tax is not paid. When the DMC Act has carefully avoided the use of that word, we must give full effect to the differential wording. Also, the absence of a language in Clause (b) of the proviso similar to that hi Clause (a) - which indicates that an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation will not stand, admitted unless the delay is condoned - also warrants an inference that the payment of disputed tax is not a condition precedent to the entertainment or admission of the appeal. In the present statutory context, it sounds plausible to say that such an appeal can be admitted or entertained but only cannot be heard or disposed of without pre-deposit of the disputed tax. Such an interpretation will provide some much needed relief from the harshness of the provision. These are not days in which the calculation of the property tax is simple and uncomplicated; the determination of the annual value of the property, except when based on the actual rent received from the property, involves various subjective factors and, not unoften, there is a wide gulf between the tax admitted to be due and the tax demanded. Sometimes, to compel the assessee to pay up the demanded tax for several years in succession might very well cripple him altogether. This apart, an assessee may not be able to deposit the tax while filing the appeal but may be able to pay it up within a short time, or at any rate, before the appeal comes on for hearing in the normal course. There is no reason to construe the provision so rigidly as to disable him from doing this. Again, when an appeal comes on for hearing, the appellate judge, in appropriate cases, where he feels there is some great hardship or injustice involved, may be inclined to adjourn the appeal for some time to enable the assessee to pay up the tax. Though it will not be expedient or proper to encourage adjournment of an appeal, where it is ripe for hearing otherwise, only on this ground and as a matter of course, an interpretation which leaves some room for the exercise of a judicial discretion in this regard, where the equities of the case deserve it, may not be inappropriate. The appellate judge's incidental and ancillary powers should not be curtailed except to the extent specifically precluded by the statute. We see nothing wrong in interpreting the provision as permitting the appellate authority to adjourn the hearing of the appeal thus giving time to the assessee to pay the tax or even specifically granting time or instalments to enable the assessee to deposit the disputed tax where the case merits it, so long as it does not unduly interfere with the appellate court's calendar of hearings. His powers, however, should stop short of staying the recovery of the tax till the disposal of the appeal. We say this because it is one thing for the judge to adjourn the hearing leaving it to the assessee to pay up the tax before the adjourned date or permitting the assessee to pay up the tax, if he can, in accordance with his directions before the appeal is heard. In doing so, he does not and cannot injunct the department from recovering the tax, if they wish to do so. He is only giving a chance to the assessee to pay up the tax if he wants the appeal to be heard. It is, however, a totally different thing for the judge to stay the recovery till the disposal of the appeal; that would result in modifying the language of the proviso to read: "no appeal shall be disposed of until the tax is paid". Short of this, however, there is no reason to restrict the powers unduly; all he has to do is to ensure that the entire tax in dispute is paid up by the time the appeal is actually heard on its merits. We would, therefore, read Clause (b) of Section 170 only as a bar to the hearing of the appeal and its disposal on merits and not as a bar to the entertainment of the appeal itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 54 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1