Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P. vs M/S. Indra Industries on 12 January, 2000
2. I heard Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Jaju Babu and Government Pleader, Sri. Sojan James, appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner relied on another clarification issued by the Government vide Ext.P1 wherein the Government has stated that a canopy constructed by the petrol bunks will not be treated as a building for the purpose of Rule 59(3) of the Kerala Building Rules. Accordingly the Government has stated that a distance of 3 metres from the road side to the building only need be insisted for construction of canopies. Counsel for the, petitioner contends that a canopy constructed for petrol outlet is not understood as a building by the Government, and Ext.P2 clarification is in conflict with another clarification, Ext.P1, issued by another Government Department, and therefore Ext.P2 is arbitrary and untenable. On the other hand, Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P2 clarification has only relevance so far as the Building Tax Act is concerned, and according to him Ext.P1 clarification issued by the Government is only in the nature of exemption from Building Rules. Government Pleader has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries (122 STC 100) and the decision in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical Industries (AIR 2002 SC 453) and contended that Ext.P2 clarification issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act is binding on the authorities and therefore the buildings constructed by the petrol outlets in the form of canopy are assessable to building tax.
Collector Of Central Excise, Vadodra vs M/S. Dhiren Chemical Industries on 12 December, 2001
2. I heard Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Jaju Babu and Government Pleader, Sri. Sojan James, appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner relied on another clarification issued by the Government vide Ext.P1 wherein the Government has stated that a canopy constructed by the petrol bunks will not be treated as a building for the purpose of Rule 59(3) of the Kerala Building Rules. Accordingly the Government has stated that a distance of 3 metres from the road side to the building only need be insisted for construction of canopies. Counsel for the, petitioner contends that a canopy constructed for petrol outlet is not understood as a building by the Government, and Ext.P2 clarification is in conflict with another clarification, Ext.P1, issued by another Government Department, and therefore Ext.P2 is arbitrary and untenable. On the other hand, Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P2 clarification has only relevance so far as the Building Tax Act is concerned, and according to him Ext.P1 clarification issued by the Government is only in the nature of exemption from Building Rules. Government Pleader has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries (122 STC 100) and the decision in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical Industries (AIR 2002 SC 453) and contended that Ext.P2 clarification issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act is binding on the authorities and therefore the buildings constructed by the petrol outlets in the form of canopy are assessable to building tax.
Section 3 in Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
1