Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)
V.V.Sasi vs The Commercial Tax Officer-Iii on 5 February, 2010 cites

M/S Varkisons Engineers vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 23 April, 2009

In this regard facts of the case at hand stands clearly distinguished from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varkison's case (cited supra). The proposal contains in the Finance Bill was never been transmitted into the statute. The statute which stood as on the date of commencement of the financial year 2009-10, i.e., as on 1.4.2009, the rate of compounding stipulated was Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore it cannot be said that in variance of the prevailing rate of tax any enhancement was brought during mid way of the financial year by enforcement of the Finance Act, 2009. On the other hand it is clear and evident that what is sought to be rectified through Ext.P6 is only a mistake crept in fixing the compounding rate, which happened to be refixed based on the proposals contained in the Finance Bill and based on clarifications issued through the circular. But the proposal W.P.(C).32866/09-C 8 contained in the Finance Bill was never incorporated into the statute. Hence the provisions contained in the Finance Act, through which amendment was brought in to Section 8(b), there is absolutely no enhancement effected with respect to the rate of tax, in prejudice to the interest of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P. vs M/S. Indra Industries on 12 January, 2000

In support of the above contention the petitioner had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax (U.P) v. Indra Industries (122 (2001) STC 100) and State of Kerala & others v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd & another ((2008 (16) KTR 184(SC)) and a few other decisions. Going W.P.(C).32866/09-C 9 by the dictum laid down in those decisions it is clear and evident that the circulars issued interpreting or clarifying any provisions contained in fiscal statute, which if issued by the competent authority empowered for issuing such circulars under the provisions of the respective statutes, is binding on all assessing authorities concerned. But in the case at hand Ext.P4 cannot be termed as a circular issued under the provisions of the statute interpreting or clarifying any of the provisions contained in the statute. On the other hand Ext.P4 contained only operational instructions for implementation of proposals contained in the Kerala Finance Bill 2009. If such proposals have not been transmitted into statute books at any point of time, it cannot be said that those proposals were having any statutory force. Hence Ext.P4 cannot be termed as a circular issued in interpretation or in clarification of any of the provisions contained in the relevant statute. In the case at hand it is evident that, the decision taken based on the proposals contained in the Finance Bill which was instructed to be implemented through Ext.P4 circular, stands in contradiction to the statute which stood prior to the amendment and after the amendment. Therefore it is evident that the petitioner could not, as a matter of right, claim benefit of the proposals W.P.(C).32866/09-C 10 contained in the Finance Bill nor the benefit of Ext.P4 circular issued providing operational instructions of implementation of such proposals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

State Of Kerala & Ors vs M/S Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 8 February, 2008

In support of the above contention the petitioner had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax (U.P) v. Indra Industries (122 (2001) STC 100) and State of Kerala & others v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd & another ((2008 (16) KTR 184(SC)) and a few other decisions. Going W.P.(C).32866/09-C 9 by the dictum laid down in those decisions it is clear and evident that the circulars issued interpreting or clarifying any provisions contained in fiscal statute, which if issued by the competent authority empowered for issuing such circulars under the provisions of the respective statutes, is binding on all assessing authorities concerned. But in the case at hand Ext.P4 cannot be termed as a circular issued under the provisions of the statute interpreting or clarifying any of the provisions contained in the statute. On the other hand Ext.P4 contained only operational instructions for implementation of proposals contained in the Kerala Finance Bill 2009. If such proposals have not been transmitted into statute books at any point of time, it cannot be said that those proposals were having any statutory force. Hence Ext.P4 cannot be termed as a circular issued in interpretation or in clarification of any of the provisions contained in the relevant statute. In the case at hand it is evident that, the decision taken based on the proposals contained in the Finance Bill which was instructed to be implemented through Ext.P4 circular, stands in contradiction to the statute which stood prior to the amendment and after the amendment. Therefore it is evident that the petitioner could not, as a matter of right, claim benefit of the proposals W.P.(C).32866/09-C 10 contained in the Finance Bill nor the benefit of Ext.P4 circular issued providing operational instructions of implementation of such proposals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 123 - Full Document
1