Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (1.71 seconds)Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Assam Excise Act, 1910
Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 25 October, 1989
89. We must, however, observe, that these imposts and
levies have been imposed by virtue of the decision of this
Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. case. The States as
well as the petitioners and manufacturers have adjusted
their rights and their position on that basis except in the
case of State of Tamil Nadu. In that view of the matter, it
would be necessary to state that these provisions are
declared to be illegal prospectively. In other words, the
respondents States are restrained from enforcing the said
levy any further but the respondents will not be liable for
any refund and the tax already collected and paid will not
be refunded. We prospectively declare these imposts to be
illegal and invalid, but do not affect any realisations
already made. The writ petitions and the appeals are
disposed of accordingly.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.P. V. Sundararamier & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh& ... on 11 March, 1958
It is true that the effect of a legislation without
legislative competence is that it is nonest. [See: Behram
Khurshed Pesikaka vs. The State of Bombay at 652, 653,
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs. The Union of India at 940,
M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh & Another (supra) at 1468 and Mahendra Lal Jaini vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others at 937-941.]
Nevertheless a law enacted without legislative
competence remains on the statute book till a Court of
competent jurisdiction adjudicates thereon and declares it
to be void. When the Court declares it to be void it is
only then that it can be said that it is nonest for all
purposes.
Section 39 in The Assam Excise Act, 1910 [Entire Act]
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. And Anr. vs Asstt. Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 26 November, 1993
Furthermore in view of the enunciation of the law by
this Court in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. case (supra), a bank
guarantee which is furnished cannot be regarded as payment
of excise levy which the Government is entitled to retain.
The furnishing of a bank guarantee is ordered normally in
order to ensure collection of dues. Where, however, the
State, as in the present case, has been held not to be
entitled to collect or realise vend fee after 25th October,
1989 it cannot be allowed to invoke the bank guarantee and
realise the amount of vend fee. What cannot be done
directly cannot be done indirectly either. Furnishing of
bank guarantee is only a promise by the bank to pay to the
beneficiary the amount under certain circumstances contained
in the bank guarantee. Furnishing of bank guarantee cannot
tantamount to making of payment as it was to avoid making
payment of the vend fee that bank guarantees were issued.
The respondents, in other words, are not entitled to encash
the bank guarantees and realise vend fee in respect of the
period prior to 25th October, 1989.
India Cement Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu Etc on 25 October, 1989
The word prospective overruling implies an earlier
judicial decision on the same issue which was otherwise
final. That is how it was understood in Golaknath.
However, this Court has used the power even when deciding on
an issue for the first time. Thus in India Cement Ltd. and
Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others , when this Court
held that the cess sought to be levied under Section 115 of
the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 as amended by Madras Act 18
of 1964, was unconstitutional, not only did it restrain the
State of Tamil Nadu from enforcing the same any further, it
also directed that the State would not be liable for any
refund of cess already paid or collected.
Orissa Cement Ltd And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Orissa And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 April, 1991
This direction was considered in Orissa Cement Ltd. vs.
State of Orissa and Others at page 498 where it was held
that: