Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.65 seconds)Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi on 21 December, 1979
It is relevant here to point out that the Revenue did not prefer any second appeal even though the Revenue has a right for preferring such second appeal under the statute and under the circumstances, the order of the first appellate authority relying on the aforesaid decision Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in [1978] 42 STC 386 became final and it is also pertinent to note that the entire assessment was nullified by the first appellate authority. Therefore, after the order of the first appellate authority, there was virtually no order of assessment. It is trite law that Section 12(8) is a provision in respect of assessment or under-assessment. When there is no assessment, question of escaped assessment or underassessment does not arise.
State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966
The honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. observed as under (at page 145 of STC):
State Of Orissa & Ors vs M/S. Krishna Stores on 21 January, 1997
30. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue also placed reliance on the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Krishna Stores reported in [1997] 104 STC 594 where the honourable apex court held at page 600 as follows:
Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd vs Ratan Lal Singh on 1 May, 1974
In the case of Gojer Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh the honourable apex court held that the subject-matter of the suit and subject-matter of the appeal being identical, the doctrine of merger will be applicable. Therefore, if the subject-matter is not the same, question of applicability of the doctrine of merger will not arise.
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the case of State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. reported in. In that case, the subject-matter before the assessing officer and the appellate authority being same the assessment order got merged with the first appellate order and the honourable Supreme Court held that the same could not have been revised. Thus, this case is of no help to the petitioner as in the present case the subject-matter before the assessing officer while passing original assessment order and the subject-matter for initiating proceedings under Rule 12(8) are different.
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
The other case relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is Kunhayammed's case , in which the honourable Supreme Court, as stated above, has categorically held that the logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. For the reasons stated above, this case is also of no help to the petitioner.
Section 12 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Sanawad Co-Operative Society on 15 March, 1983
29. Reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Revenue on the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Sanawad Cooperative Society where it has been held by their Lordships that it is true that the question in aforesaid two cases before the Full Bench arose out of the Income-tax proceeding but that will not make any difference as regards the applicability of principles of merger. The appellate authority under the Income-tax Act as well as the Sales Tax Act has jurisdiction to consider and decide even that part of the order of the assessing authority against which no appeal has been preferred. But when the appellate authority does not touch any part of the order of the assessing authority, order of the assessing authority to that extent cannot be held to have merged with the order of the appellate authority.
S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 18 September, 2002
21. The honourable apex court in the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu , held that the doctrine of merger has a limited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the contents or subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.