Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.28 seconds)Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs India Carbon Ltd. And Ors. on 21 June, 1996
13. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (supra) on which strong
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the
same does not lay down any absolute proposition of law that in no case,
viz. even where by the facts make out a case where the exercise of
powers by the authorities is without jurisdiction or where the concerned
authority has usurped jurisdiction without any legal foundation, the
Page 17 of 18
C/SCA/4418/2014 ORDER
High Court should not exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Each case has to examined on its own facts,
and if on facts a case is made out for exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution in the light of the principles propounded by the
Supreme Court in this regard, the availability of an alternative remedy
will not bar the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Customs Act, 1962
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
12. In the aforesaid backdrop, it prima facie appears that the
assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the second respondent by
issuance of the impugned show cause notice is without any legal basis.
The Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai (supra) has held that the jurisdiction of the High
Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not
affected, especially in a case where the authority against whom the writ
is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp
jurisdiction without any legal foundation. The said decision would apply
on all fours to the present case. Accordingly, the contention that the
petition is not maintainable does not merit acceptance.
Section 2 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
M/S Inox Air Products Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 29 May, 2012
4.1 Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case
of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani,
(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 580 (SC), on which reliance had been placed by
this court in the case of Inox Air Products Limited v. Union of India
(supra), to point out that in the said decision, the Supreme Court has
held that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition
and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said
Page 9 of 18
C/SCA/4418/2014 ORDER
notices in view of the facts, which may be involved in the said case. The
court had observed in the said case that, it transpired from the record
that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, upon having a reason to believe
that the documents seized indicate escapement of income, had issued a
show cause notice under section 153C of the Act to the assessee for re
assessment of his income. It was submitted that the said decision was
rendered in the facts of the said case and would not be applicable in the
present case.
Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd vs Deputy Commnr., Commercial Taxes & Ors on 12 August, 2009
4.7 Reliance was also placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court
in the case of Bellary Steels & Alloys Limited v. Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes (Assessment) & Others, (2009) 17 SCC 547 and in the
case of Indo Asahi Glass Company Limited & Another v. Income Tax
Officer & Others, (2002) 10 SCC 444 as well as the decision of this court
in the case of Lupin Limited (Formerly Lupin Lab. Ltd) & Another v.
Union of India & Another, 2012 (3) GLH 519, and more particularly
paragraph 39 thereof wherein the court after considering the decision of
the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon
Limited (supra) had entertained the petition.
Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 11 September, 2001
4.7 Reliance was also placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court
in the case of Bellary Steels & Alloys Limited v. Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes (Assessment) & Others, (2009) 17 SCC 547 and in the
case of Indo Asahi Glass Company Limited & Another v. Income Tax
Officer & Others, (2002) 10 SCC 444 as well as the decision of this court
in the case of Lupin Limited (Formerly Lupin Lab. Ltd) & Another v.
Union of India & Another, 2012 (3) GLH 519, and more particularly
paragraph 39 thereof wherein the court after considering the decision of
the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon
Limited (supra) had entertained the petition.
Inter Continental (India) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 February, 2002
The case of the respondents is solely based upon the
end use of such goods, which is a condition that is not provided under
the said exemption notification. Thus, in essence and substance, the
respondents seek to read something additional in the notification which
has not been provided therein, which is not permissible in law. Under
the circumstances, there is substance in the contention advanced on
behalf of the petitioners that the impugned show cause notice is based
upon the Circular No. 40/2001Cus., dated 13 th July 2001, which has
been quashed by this court. Under the circumstances, the contention that
the present case is directly covered by the decision of this court in the
case Inter Continental (India) v. Union of India, 2003 (154) ELT 37
(Guj.)