Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.39 seconds)Article 276 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government of India Act, 1935
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 57 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
47. A plea has been taken in para 14 of the counter-affidavit that since no distress warrant has
actually been issued against the Petitioners so far and what has been issued is only a notice to show cause why distress warrant shall not be issued and that, accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed as premature has little substance. An application under Article 226 can be presented not only after the Petitioners' legal rights have been invaded already but also when they have been threatened with an immediate peril vide Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar . The notices which have been served unmistakably show that the Respondents will recover the demand, which is held by me to be illegal, unless restrained by the Court. Hence, there is a threat of immediate injury to the Petitioners.
Balaji vs Income-Tax Officer, Special ... on 4 August, 1961
5. Rule 118, again, provides for another general publication of the list of defaulters, in a similar manner, before issuing the distress warrant, referred to in Rules 119-120, for recovery of the tax. The Petitioners are, accordingly, right in their contention that the Act does not provide for the service of individual notices, either before or after the assessment, and there is much force in the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that a taxing statute which does not provide for
any reasonable opportunity being offered to the assessee being heard before the liability is imposed upon him may be challenged as imposing a procedurally unreasonable restriction upon the freedom of properly or/and freedom of business guaranteed to him by Article 19(1)(f)(g) of the Constitution. This has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Kunnnthat v. State of Kerala, Balaji v. Income Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle. Akola .
The Corporation Of Calcutta vs Sm. Padma Debi And Others on 8 August, 1961
24. As has been held in Padma Devi's case , the 'reasonable' rent which may be expected from a hypothetical tenant may be less than the actual rent which the landlord may have actually recovered during the year of assessment. For instance, at a time of scarcity of accommodation, the actual rent may be higher than the 'standard rent' which might be payable under a Rent Control legislation; and the rent that might reasonably be expected from the hypothetical tenant in such a case would be the standard rent and not the actual rent.