Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
M/S K. Raheja Development Corporation vs State Of Karnataka on 5 May, 2005
24. We would like to clarify one aspect. Arguments were advanced before us on the point whether the proposed activities 1 and 2 could fall under Sub-clause (zzzza) which makes the services in relation to the execution of a works contract exigible to service tax. The alternative contention raised by the Department has given rise to these arguments. The contention of the learned authorized representative appearing for the applicant was that no works contract is involved in such activities. The Departmental Representative placed heavy reliance on the case of Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka , and argued that the said judgment is a complete answer to the applicant's contention.
M/S N.S. Nayak & Sons vs State Of Goa on 8 May, 2003
15.1 So also in the case of N S Nayak & Sons v. State of Goa , the Supreme Court, at paragraph 13, construed the phrase 'in relation to' as follows:
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
17. Coming to the expression "service", while dealing with the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court, in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta , made certain observations as regards the meaning of the word "service." The Supreme Court pointed out that the concept of service is very wide and how it should be understood and what it means depends on the context in which it has been used in the enactment.
Section 17 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
State Wakf Board, Madras vs Abdul Azeez Sahib And Ors. on 30 March, 1966
The expression "in relation to" (so also "pertaining to") is, a very broad expression which pre-supposes another subject matter. These are words of comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending on the context, see State Wakf Board v. Abdul Aziz A.I.R. 1968 Madras 79, 81 paragraphs 8 and 10, following and approving Nitai Charan Bagchi v. Suresh Chandra Paul 66 C.W.N. 767, Shyam Lal v. M. Shyamlal and 76 Corpus Juris Secudum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then, these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated that the term "relate" is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that "relating to" has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to "concerning with" and "pertaining to". The expression "pertaining to" is an expression of expansion and not of contraction.