Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
M/S Hotel ... vs Asst.Commr.Of Commercial Taxes & Anr on 3 February, 2012 cites

J. V. Gokal & Co. (Private) Ltd vs The Assistant Collector, Of ... on 25 January, 1960

11. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have passed orders against the appellant as the appellant had not exhausted equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy. He submitted that the issue involved in the litigation had already been decided by this Court and other High Courts and the legal position was so clear that the appellant ought not to have been asked to exhaust alternative statutory remedy. He submitted that when facts were not in dispute and the law had been settled by this Court in several other cases, it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to dispose of the petition only on the ground that the alternative remedy had not been exhausted. He also submitted that the Division Bench also committed an error by confirming the order passed by the learned Single 7 Judge of the High Court. So as to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon several judgments including the judgments delivered in the cases of State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Bombay Company Ltd. Alleppey [AIR 1952 SC 366], State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory Quilon [AIR 1953 SC 333], J.V. Gokal & Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Inspection) and Others [AIR 1960 SC 595] and in Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs [AIR 2000 SC 3448].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Kiran Spinning Mills vs Collector Of Customs on 5 August, 1999

11. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have passed orders against the appellant as the appellant had not exhausted equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy. He submitted that the issue involved in the litigation had already been decided by this Court and other High Courts and the legal position was so clear that the appellant ought not to have been asked to exhaust alternative statutory remedy. He submitted that when facts were not in dispute and the law had been settled by this Court in several other cases, it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to dispose of the petition only on the ground that the alternative remedy had not been exhausted. He also submitted that the Division Bench also committed an error by confirming the order passed by the learned Single 7 Judge of the High Court. So as to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon several judgments including the judgments delivered in the cases of State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Bombay Company Ltd. Alleppey [AIR 1952 SC 366], State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory Quilon [AIR 1953 SC 333], J.V. Gokal & Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Inspection) and Others [AIR 1960 SC 595] and in Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs [AIR 2000 SC 3448].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

K. Gopinathan Nair & Etc vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 1997

According to them, before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers, they ought to have been transferred by transfer of documents of title to the goods, but as it was not done so, it cannot be said that the sales had taken place in the course of import of the goods before crossing the customs frontiers of our country. So as to substantiate the aforestated submissions, they relied upon the judgments in K. Gopinathan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala [(1997) 10 SCC 1], Binani Bros.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 39 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

State Of Travancore-Cochin Andothers vs The Bombay Co. Ltd.State Of ... on 16 October, 1952

11. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have passed orders against the appellant as the appellant had not exhausted equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy. He submitted that the issue involved in the litigation had already been decided by this Court and other High Courts and the legal position was so clear that the appellant ought not to have been asked to exhaust alternative statutory remedy. He submitted that when facts were not in dispute and the law had been settled by this Court in several other cases, it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to dispose of the petition only on the ground that the alternative remedy had not been exhausted. He also submitted that the Division Bench also committed an error by confirming the order passed by the learned Single 7 Judge of the High Court. So as to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon several judgments including the judgments delivered in the cases of State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Bombay Company Ltd. Alleppey [AIR 1952 SC 366], State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory Quilon [AIR 1953 SC 333], J.V. Gokal & Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Inspection) and Others [AIR 1960 SC 595] and in Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs [AIR 2000 SC 3448].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 144 - M P Sastri - Full Document
1