Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.32 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 22 in The Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs M/S. Suprabhat Steel Limited & Ors., ... on 17 November, 1998
With the ratification by the State Cabinet on April 22, 2000, the impugned notification dated July 30, 1999 would be treated as having been validly made with the approval of the State Cabinet and the reason given in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. [1999] 112 STC 258 ; (1998) 8 JT 2 (SC) for holding the notification issued under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act as bad in law is not available in the facts of the present case.
Section 25 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
The crux of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is that the court should compel the Government to make good its promise to its subjects on grounds of equity or morality, but where the court is satisfied on materials placed before it that due to change in circumstances overriding public interest demands that the promise should not be enforced against the Government, the court will not enforce such promise against the Government on grounds of superior equity or morality.
Gopi Chand vs The Delhi Administration on 20 January, 1959
In Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration AIR 1959 SC 609, under Section 20 of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, the Provincial Government was authorised to declare the whole or any part of the province as may be specified in the notification to be a dangerously disturbed area and under Section 36(1) of the said Act the Provincial Government was empowered to certify the offences under the said Act. Four notifications were issued under Section 20 of the said Act. By the first notification issued on 8th July, 1949, the whole of the province of Delhi was declared to be a dangerously disturbed area. This first notification was cancelled with effect from 1st October, 1950 by the second notification issued on 28th September, 1950. Third notification was issued on 6th October, 1950 modifying the aforesaid second notification dated 28th September, 1950 by inserting the words "except as respect things done or omitted to be done before the date of this notification". In other words, this third notification purported to introduce an exception to the cancellation of the first notification caused by the second notification and in effect, the third notification purported to treat the Province of Delhi as a dangerously disturbed area in respect of things done or omitted to be done before the date of the said notification. The fourth notification was issued on 7th April, 1951 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by Section 36(1) of the Act certifying as being triable under the said Act in any area within the State of Delhi any offence under any law other than the aforesaid Act of which cognizance had been taken by a Magistrate in Delhi before 1st October, 1950 and the trial in respect of which was pending in any court immediately before 1st October, 1950 and had not concluded before the date of certificate issued under the said notification. An argument was advanced on behalf of the Delhi Administration that the competent authority was entitled to modify any notification issued by it under Section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 which is similarly worded as Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as also Section 22 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937. The Supreme Court held :
Sales Tax Officer & Anr vs M/S. Shree Durga Oil Mills & Anr on 15 December, 1997
In this context, he submitted that in Sales Tax Officer v. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998] 108 STC 274 (SC) ; AIR 1998 SC 591, the Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal of exemption from sales tax because the withdrawal of exemption from sales tax impugned in that case was in exercise of powers of the State Government under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act to withdraw an exemption and does not apply to the case of the petitioner as the State Government has no such power under Section 7 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act to withdraw the benefit of deferment of payment of sales tax. Mr. Rath argued that in the absence of any such express power vested in the State Government in Section 7 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act empowering the State Government to withdraw the benefit of deferment of payment of sales tax granted under Section 7 of the Act, the State Government cannot withdraw the benefit of deferment of payment of sales tax and the Notifications Nos. 623 and 624 dated July 30, 1999 are ultra vires the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996
"The law on the matter is now well-settled that even in respect of exemptions that may have been made by the Government the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not be applicable if the change in the stand of the Government is made on account of public policy. This position has been explained in detail by this Court in Kasinka Trading (1995) 1 SCC 274 and reiterated in Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 398. In both these cases this Court is concerned with notifications issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act.