Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 66 (0.31 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 92 in The Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate
General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1
(Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs.
Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to
overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the
extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy
before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
The Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016
M/S. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs The Excise And Taxation Officer Cum ... on 1 February, 2023
Instead of examining of each and every cited decisions
on behalf of the petitioners and learned Advocate General, we
thought of taking note of later decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
namely M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation
Officer cum Assessing Authority and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC
Patna High Court CWJC No.4882 of 2020 dt. 24-11-2023
65/84
OnLine SC 95 in which it is held that mere availability of an
alternative remedy of appeal/revision would not oust the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The analysis of the aforementioned decision the power is
required to be taken note of for the purpose of entertaining the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the
fact that party has a statutory remedy.
Section 3 in The Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 3A in The Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 25 October, 1989
In view of the legal position as settled by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Synthetics & Chemicals [Synthetics &
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) 1 SCC
109] and the three-Judge Bench in Modi
Distillery [State of U.P. v. Modi Distillery,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4882 of 2020 dt. 24-11-2023
76/84
(1995) 5 SCC 753] and the statutory
provisions contained in the said Act, we see
no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order [Utkal Distilleries v.
State, OJC No. 9369 of 1998, order dated 5-
12-2008 (Ori)] . The appeals, therefore, are
found to be without merit and as such,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of"