Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.03 seconds)The Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005
Smt. Uma Bai vs Union Of India on 18 May, 2017
27. Having heard both sides on this point,? we direct that if the appellants deposit the sum mandated by Section 35F(1) with its provisos within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Tribunal shall entertain the said appeal and decide it on merits and in accordance with law. On failure, its earlier direction would stand and then it will not be open for the appellant to avail of the appellate remedy. We would not extend this time under any circumstances.
31.3 In the case of Ganesh Yadav Vs. UOI (supra), the Honble Allahabad High Court held as below:-
Section 62 in The Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Nimbus Communications Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 3 February, 2015
80.?Therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ petition in W.P. No. 13431 of 2015 seeking a declaration that the amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is applicable only to show cause proceedings initiated on or after 6-8-2014 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
31.2 In the case of Nimbus Communication Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-IV (supra), the Honble Mumbai High Court has held as under:-
Competent Authority vs Barangore Jute Factory & Ors on 22 November, 2005
Reliance can be made to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court decision in the case of Competent Authority Vs Barangorng Jute Factory and Others - 2005 (13) SCC 477 has held as under:
Jharkhand State Elect.Board & Ors vs M/S Laxmi Business & Cement ... on 28 February, 2014
Further, in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others Vs Ambey Cement and Another's - 2005 (1) SCC 368 = 2004 (178) E.L. T.55
sec, Para 26 of the judgment, the court held as under:-