Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)

Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2004

7. Appellant places reliance on Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn. v. Union of India and others ((2004) 135 STC 480) to contend that there is no overlapping in law so far as tax on luxury and service tax are concerned. According to him, providing food or articles for human consumption, though deemed to be sale of goods, does not cover the element of service. Therefore, in order to impose tax on sale of goods, it must amount to sale according to the established concept of a sale in the law of contract or more precisely, the Sale of Goods Act of 1930. The Legislature cannot enlarge the definition of sale so as to bring it within the ambit of taxation, transactions which WA1009/13 7 could not be a sale in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 106 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969

10. He relies upon Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa ((1970) 25 STC 211) to contend that imposition of penalty calls for only when there is failure to perform statutory obligations and it is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document
1