Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.26 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
The Bombay Sales Tax Act whose validity came up for consideration in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd [1953] 4 S.T.C. 133 before the Supreme Court contained provisions requiring dealers to be registered under the Act. The decision proceeded on the basis that the registration and licensing would be invalid only if the tax itself which was levied by the principal provisions of the Act were unconstitutional. Patanjali Sastri, C.J.,said :
Section 7 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd vs The State Of Ajmer on 14 October, 1954
41. Similarly the Supreme Court in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer [1955] 1 S.C.R. 752 upheld the constitutional validity of the Minimum Wages Act, after negativing the contention that it offended the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). It was stated at page 755 :
Chintaman Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradeshram ... on 8 November, 1950
In our judgment the meaning which we are attributing to the expression "public interest" in Article 19(6) is in no way different from which Mahajan, J., placed on it when he said in Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1950] S.C.R. 759:
The British And Foreign Marine ... vs The India General Navigation And ... on 12 July, 1910
48. Instances of non-selective licensing as a method or an incident of taxation have come before the Courts on several occasions, and of these it is sufficient to refer to a few. The Fuel Oil Tax Act, 1930, of British Columbia, whose validity came up for consideration before the Privy Council in Attorney-General for British Columbia v. Kingcome Navigation Company Limited [1934] A.C. 45, is perhaps a very good illustration. The tax was levied on every person who consumed fuel oil, the amount of the tax being computed according to the quantity consumed. The machinery however for collection was by the licensing of dealers in fuel oil who were compelled to take out licences on payment of a dollar each. The compulsion was enforced by a provision which prohibited any person from keeping for sale or selling fuel oil within the province unless he was the holder of a licence issued pursuant to the section in respect of each place of business at which the fuel oil was kept for sale or sold by him. We are not very much concerned with the actual decision which turned on the point as to whether the tax was or was not a direct tax within the power of the Province to levy. Incidentally we might note that the Privy Council repelled the challenge to the validity of the tax grounded on its being "a regulation of trade or commerce" falling within the exclusive Dominion power under Section 91 (2) of the British North America Act, 1867. We are referring to the decision merely to point out that licensing is a usual method of enforcing taxes on the sale of goods.
Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area Committee,Jalalabad And ... on 27 February, 1952
That is the ratio underlying the decision of the Supreme Court in Yasin v. Town Area Committee [1952] S.C.R. 572 and Himmatlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1954] S.C.R. 1122.