Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 April, 2019 cites

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

“33. That in view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the judgment of Atiabari case and Automobile case having been overruled on 11.11.2016 by the Nine Judges Bench of the Apex Court, hence the interest and penalty could not be demanded from the petitioner for the period prior to 11.11.2016 as the petitioner has acted upon the law, as has been declared by the Constitutional Benches of Hon’ble Apex Court earlier, which was holding the field, as being the law of the land. Hence, when the law itself has been overruled subsequently and the petitioner being a bonafide dealer was acting as per the provisions of the law, as was existing during the period in dispute, cannot be made to suffer due to subsequent change in the law by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 415 - B P Sinha - Full Document

The Automobile Transport(Rajasthan) ... vs The State Of Rajasthan And Others(And ... on 9 April, 1962

“33. That in view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the judgment of Atiabari case and Automobile case having been overruled on 11.11.2016 by the Nine Judges Bench of the Apex Court, hence the interest and penalty could not be demanded from the petitioner for the period prior to 11.11.2016 as the petitioner has acted upon the law, as has been declared by the Constitutional Benches of Hon’ble Apex Court earlier, which was holding the field, as being the law of the land. Hence, when the law itself has been overruled subsequently and the petitioner being a bonafide dealer was acting as per the provisions of the law, as was existing during the period in dispute, cannot be made to suffer due to subsequent change in the law by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 84 - Cited by 265 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Itc Limited vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011

On 23.12.2011, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court decided the Writ Petition No. 1483 of 2007 alongwith bunch of writ petitions, leading writ petition being Writ Tax No. 1484 of 2007 – ITC Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the State of U.P. did not lack legislative competence in enacting the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007, imposing Entry Tax on the entry of scheduled goods into the local areas for consumption, use or sale thereunder. Concluding part of the judgment in Paragraph Nos. 151, 152 and 153 are as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 77 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahaliram Ramjidas on 25 April, 1940

“16. It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability 45 effective. It, therefore, provides the machinery for the assessment of the liability already fixed by the charging section, and then provides the mode for the recovery and collection of tax, including penal provisions meant to deal with defaulters. Provision is also made for charging interest on delayed payments, etc. Ordinarily the charging section which fixes the liability is strictly construed but that rule of strict construction is not extended to the machinery provisions which are construed like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, India United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab). But it must also be realised that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount……”
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 231 - Full Document

Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Excess ... on 21 May, 1958

“16. It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability 45 effective. It, therefore, provides the machinery for the assessment of the liability already fixed by the charging section, and then provides the mode for the recovery and collection of tax, including penal provisions meant to deal with defaulters. Provision is also made for charging interest on delayed payments, etc. Ordinarily the charging section which fixes the liability is strictly construed but that rule of strict construction is not extended to the machinery provisions which are construed like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, India United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab). But it must also be realised that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount……”
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 50 - Full Document
1   2 Next