Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Tata Steel Limited vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 19 February, 2008 cites

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

3. Dr. Devi Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Commissioner was not justified in refusing to consider the case of the petitioner on merit while considering the stay petition. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Commissioner was bound to consider the merit of the case and pass speaking order while considering the stay petition of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submitted that since the Commissioner while passing the impugned order on the stay petition has failed to consider the question of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi 71 ITR 815, and a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sri Balaji Trading Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Anr. 175 ITR 428.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 478 - A N Grover - Full Document

Sri Balaji Trading Company vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettur ... on 24 March, 1988

3. Dr. Devi Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Commissioner was not justified in refusing to consider the case of the petitioner on merit while considering the stay petition. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Commissioner was bound to consider the merit of the case and pass speaking order while considering the stay petition of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submitted that since the Commissioner while passing the impugned order on the stay petition has failed to consider the question of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi 71 ITR 815, and a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sri Balaji Trading Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Anr. 175 ITR 428.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs Dunlop India Ltd. And Ors on 30 November, 1984

In the matter of exercise of power for passing interim order specially in revenue matters, the Supreme Court in the case of "Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors." has discussed in detail and held that where matters of public revenue are concerned, interim order ought not to be granted merely because the prima facie case has been shown. The balance of convenience must be clearly in favour of the making of an interim order and there should not be the slightest indication of a likelihood of prejudice to the public interest. The Supreme Court repeatedly deprecated the practice of granting interim order against the interest of public revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 971 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1