Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.64 seconds)
Automotive Coaches And Components Ltd. ... vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors. on 28 April, 2003
cites
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
L.G. Balakrishnan Brothers Ltd. And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 6 June, 2000
12. Learned Additional Advocate-General for the Revenue has contended that the said Government order dated January 17, 1972 was passed prior to the insertion of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The legislative change of which Sub-section (3) was inserted by Act 103 of 1976 with effect from 1976 has made the G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department, dated January 17, 1972 redundant, is the argument advanced on the side of the Revenue. Further, when once the effect of the said Government order has been inserted in the Act itself, there is no question of raising the same at a later point of time by the petitioners in order to achieve their object. Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 has been elaborately considered by this Special Tribunal in its order dated June 6, 2000. Reportd as L.G. Balakrishnan Brothers Ltd. v, State of Tamil Nadu [2001] 123 STC 508. This Special Tribunal, in the said order, has held :
Common Cause, A Registered Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 1999
The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the case of Common Cause : A Registered Society v. Union of India (1996) 8 JT 613 (SC). At page 634, the Supreme Court held :
Dai-Ichi Karnataka Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2000
In Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1741 at page 1743, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court:
Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd. vs Union Of India on 18 February, 1993
In the case of Bhoruka Steel Limited v. Union of India (1989) 10 SISTC 19 (Mad.) their Lordships of the Madras High Court have held :
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
16. Learned Additional Advocate-General for the Government has stated that if any considered order is passed after due consideration of the question raised, merely because such consideration has not been stated in the order itself, it cannot be said that the order is totally invalid. Learned Additional Advocate-General further contended that the learned secretary, on considering the issues raised by the petitioners, had passed that order and for better appreciation, the petitioners ought to have gone into the file on the basis of which the order was passed. To strengthen his contention, learned Additional Advocate-General has relied on the decision in the case of Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1277. At page 1297, the Supreme Court held :
Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995
In the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh AIR 1995 SC 705, while considering the various instances on the ground of inequality, it was held :
Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996
In the case of Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1996 SC 1175, the Supreme Court held :