Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.32 seconds)THE BIHAR FINANCE ACT, 2018
Repealing Act, 1938
Utkal Contractors & Joinery Private ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 7 May, 1987
22. The said passage has been referred with approval by the Court in
Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Orissa and
others[5]
Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors., Etc on 12 February, 1988
In M/s Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & others[6] a two-
Judge Bench while emphasising on the concept of interpretation opined thus:-
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986
“58. The words in the statute must, prima facie, be given their ordinary
meanings. Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and
without doubt, that construction ought to prevail unless there are some
strong and obvious reasons to the contrary. Nothing has been shown to
warrant that literal construction should not be given effect to. See
Chandavarkar S.R. Rao v. Ashalata[7] approving 44 Halsbury’s Laws of
England, 4th Edn., para 856 at page 552, Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated
Collieries Limited[8]. It must be emphasised that interpretation must be in
consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39 (b)
and (c) of the Constitution.
Keshavji Ravji & Co. Etc. Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 1990
59. It has to be reiterated that the object of interpretation of a statute
is to discover the intention of the Parliament as expressed in the Act. The
dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of
the legislature as expressed in the statute, considering it as a whole and
in its context. That intention, and therefore the meaning of the statute,
is primarily to be sought in the words used in the statute itself, which
must, if they are plain and unambiguous, be applied as they stand. …”
The aforestated principle has been reiterated in Keshavji Ravji and
Co. and others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax[9].
Mahadeo Prasad Bais (Dead) vs Income-Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Gorakhpur ... on 12 September, 1991
In this regard, reference to Mahadeo Prasad Bais (Dead) vs. Income-
Tax Officer ‘A’ Ward, Gorakhpur and another[10] would be absolutely seemly.
In the said case, it has been held that an interpretation which will
result in an anomaly or absurdity should be avoided and where literal
construction creates an anomaly, absurdity and discrimination, statute
should be liberally construed even slightly straining the language so as to
avoid the meaningless anomaly. Emphasis has been laid on the principle
that if an interpretation leads to absurdity, it is the duty of the court
to avoid the same.
Telangana Steel Industries vs State Of A. P on 4 March, 1994
After due enquiry, he had opined that though the raw materials for the
manufacture of CR product is HR product, the CR product is totally
different, both in its metallurgical components and the end-use, and the
two products were commercially recognised as different products. Hence, the
cold-rolled products manufactured by the new unit being different from the
hot-rolled product manufactured by the old unit, the appellants were
entitled to exemption of sales tax as provided under the industrial policy.
On that score, he had approved issuance of the certificate. However, the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand initiated a suo motu revision
under Section 46(4) of the 1981 Act and placing reliance on Telangana Steel
Industries v. State of A.P.[1] held that the two products must be treated
as the same commodity and the products not being different commodities, the
benefit of exemption was not available.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kodaianal Motor Union (P) Ltd on 1 May, 1986
In that context, the learned Judge has
referred to the authority in State of T.N. v. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P)
Ltd.[12] wherein this Court after referring to K.P. Varghese v. ITO[13] and
Luke v. IRC[14] has observed:-