Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.67 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994
23. Upon consideration of several judgments that have been rendered
earlier, Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 274], Sales Tax
Officer Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998 (1) SCC 572], Shree Durga Oil
Mills vs. Sales Tax Officer [1989 (74) STC 10], Shrijee Sales Corporation
Vs. Union of India [1997 (3) SCC 398], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. [1979 (2) SCC 409], State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer
Oil Industries [1999 (4) SCC 357], Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd., Vs. State of
U.P. [2011 (3) SCC 193] & Directorate General of Foreign Trade Vs.
Kanak Exports [2016 (2) SCC 226], the Court concluded that the
modification or withdrawal of a notification in public interest would fall
fully within the domain and discretion of the, public authorities, that is,
either the Government or revenue authorities.
Sales Tax Officer & Anr vs M/S. Shree Durga Oil Mills & Anr on 15 December, 1997
23. Upon consideration of several judgments that have been rendered
earlier, Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 274], Sales Tax
Officer Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998 (1) SCC 572], Shree Durga Oil
Mills vs. Sales Tax Officer [1989 (74) STC 10], Shrijee Sales Corporation
Vs. Union of India [1997 (3) SCC 398], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. [1979 (2) SCC 409], State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer
Oil Industries [1999 (4) SCC 357], Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd., Vs. State of
U.P. [2011 (3) SCC 193] & Directorate General of Foreign Trade Vs.
Kanak Exports [2016 (2) SCC 226], the Court concluded that the
modification or withdrawal of a notification in public interest would fall
fully within the domain and discretion of the, public authorities, that is,
either the Government or revenue authorities.
Shree Durga Oil Mills And Anr. vs Sales Tax Officer And Ors. on 15 September, 1987
23. Upon consideration of several judgments that have been rendered
earlier, Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 274], Sales Tax
Officer Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998 (1) SCC 572], Shree Durga Oil
Mills vs. Sales Tax Officer [1989 (74) STC 10], Shrijee Sales Corporation
Vs. Union of India [1997 (3) SCC 398], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. [1979 (2) SCC 409], State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer
Oil Industries [1999 (4) SCC 357], Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd., Vs. State of
U.P. [2011 (3) SCC 193] & Directorate General of Foreign Trade Vs.
Kanak Exports [2016 (2) SCC 226], the Court concluded that the
modification or withdrawal of a notification in public interest would fall
fully within the domain and discretion of the, public authorities, that is,
either the Government or revenue authorities.
Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996
23. Upon consideration of several judgments that have been rendered
earlier, Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 274], Sales Tax
Officer Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998 (1) SCC 572], Shree Durga Oil
Mills vs. Sales Tax Officer [1989 (74) STC 10], Shrijee Sales Corporation
Vs. Union of India [1997 (3) SCC 398], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. [1979 (2) SCC 409], State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer
Oil Industries [1999 (4) SCC 357], Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd., Vs. State of
U.P. [2011 (3) SCC 193] & Directorate General of Foreign Trade Vs.
Kanak Exports [2016 (2) SCC 226], the Court concluded that the
modification or withdrawal of a notification in public interest would fall
fully within the domain and discretion of the, public authorities, that is,
either the Government or revenue authorities.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs M/S Birla Corporation Limited on 20 November, 2019
19. Having heard the rival contentions on this issue, I would accept
the stand of the revenue. The case law cited by the petitioner being Birla
Corporation (supra) would be distinguishable for the reason that in that case
the exemption notification had been issued and thereafter withdrawn even
prior to the date of grant of the exemption.
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Mahaveer Oil Industries & Ors on 22 April, 1999
23. Upon consideration of several judgments that have been rendered
earlier, Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 274], Sales Tax
Officer Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998 (1) SCC 572], Shree Durga Oil
Mills vs. Sales Tax Officer [1989 (74) STC 10], Shrijee Sales Corporation
Vs. Union of India [1997 (3) SCC 398], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. [1979 (2) SCC 409], State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer
Oil Industries [1999 (4) SCC 357], Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd., Vs. State of
U.P. [2011 (3) SCC 193] & Directorate General of Foreign Trade Vs.
Kanak Exports [2016 (2) SCC 226], the Court concluded that the
modification or withdrawal of a notification in public interest would fall
fully within the domain and discretion of the, public authorities, that is,
either the Government or revenue authorities.
Director General Of Foreign Trade vs M/S Kanak Exports on 27 October, 2015
23. Upon consideration of several judgments that have been rendered
earlier, Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 274], Sales Tax
Officer Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998 (1) SCC 572], Shree Durga Oil
Mills vs. Sales Tax Officer [1989 (74) STC 10], Shrijee Sales Corporation
Vs. Union of India [1997 (3) SCC 398], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. [1979 (2) SCC 409], State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer
Oil Industries [1999 (4) SCC 357], Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd., Vs. State of
U.P. [2011 (3) SCC 193] & Directorate General of Foreign Trade Vs.
Kanak Exports [2016 (2) SCC 226], the Court concluded that the
modification or withdrawal of a notification in public interest would fall
fully within the domain and discretion of the, public authorities, that is,
either the Government or revenue authorities.