Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.36 seconds)
Jindal Steel And Power Limited And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 12 ... on 21 January, 2020
cites
The Coast Guard Act, 1978
Section 2 in The Coast Guard Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Coast Guard Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Aashirwad Films vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 May, 2007
14. As mentioned already, though the statue originally intended to
collect EDC only from the 'Distributors' of electricity as given under Section
11
3(1) of the 1981 Act, as per the CG Act No. 28 of 2014, 28 of 2004, Section
3(1-a) was introduced in similar terms, demanding Cess from the
'Producers' of electricity as well. The rate is also common, as on date, by
virtue of the CG Act No. 10 of 2010. This being the position, there is no
unreasonable classification and both the 'Producers' and the 'Distributors' are
required to satisfy the EDC to the requisite extent, though the matter is still
pending consideration before the Apex Court in respect of the validity of
Section 3(1-a) of the 1981 Act. As it stands so, the reliance sought to be
placed by the Apex Court in Ram Prasad Narain Sahi v. The State of Bihar
{AIR 1953 SC 215, paragraphs 15 and 18}, Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil
Nair v. The State of Kerala and Another {AIR 1961 SC 552, paragraphs 8
to 10}, S.K.Dutta, Income Tax Officer v. Lawrence Singh Ingty, {AIR 1968
SC 658, paragraphs 8, 10 and 15}, State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty Naha &
Others {AIR 1969 SC 378, paragraph 5}, Aashirvad Films v. Union of
India {(2007) 6 SCC 624 , paragraphs 12 to 15, 18, 25 and 27} and State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Nalla Raja Reddy {(1967) 3 SCR 28, paragraphs 21 and
25} asserting the necessity to have a rational classification and the existence
of discriminatory provisions, are not attracted to the case in hand.
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors on 28 February, 1967
16. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners
that the enactment is unreasonable and arbitrary, inasmuch as there is no
mechanism for issuing any prior notice, hearing, assessment, appeal etc.
with regard to the fixation of liability. It is also pointed out that there is no
quasi-judicial forum before which the person facing the demand of such kind
can approach. The absence of any machinery or mechanism as above will
make the taxation unconstitutional. Support is sought to be drawn by the
verdict passed by the Apex Court in Kunnkathat Thathunni Moopil Nair
(supra) {paragraph 9} and Nalla Raja Reddy (supra) {paragraph 22 and 23}
wherein the Apex Court held that, if a taxing statute does not provide for
13
redressal i.e. notice, opportunity of hearing, taxing authority, procedure for
assessment, redressal mechanism, then, such statute is unconstitutional.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious ... vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri ... on 16 April, 1954
21. There is a contention for the Petitioners that the levy of Cess is
virtually a tax in disguise and that no tax can be levied without any authority
of law, by virtue of mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
There is also a contention that in case of any Cess, there must be co-relation
between levy and the services rendered (cess or fee) revealing the 'quid-
pro-quo'. The verdicts passed by the Apex Court in Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha, Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt, {AIR 1954 SC 282, paragraph 44 to 51}, Jaora Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, {AIR 1966 SC 416, para 19}, Om Prakash
Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishore {AIR 1986 SC 726, paragraphs 7, 10 to 12} and
16
Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan v. Jasjit Singh, Collector of Customs,
Bombay, {AIR 1962 SC 204, paragraph 13} are sought to be pressed into
service in this regard.
Jaora Sugar Mills (P) Ltd vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others on 19 April, 1965
21. There is a contention for the Petitioners that the levy of Cess is
virtually a tax in disguise and that no tax can be levied without any authority
of law, by virtue of mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
There is also a contention that in case of any Cess, there must be co-relation
between levy and the services rendered (cess or fee) revealing the 'quid-
pro-quo'. The verdicts passed by the Apex Court in Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha, Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt, {AIR 1954 SC 282, paragraph 44 to 51}, Jaora Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, {AIR 1966 SC 416, para 19}, Om Prakash
Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishore {AIR 1986 SC 726, paragraphs 7, 10 to 12} and
16
Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan v. Jasjit Singh, Collector of Customs,
Bombay, {AIR 1962 SC 204, paragraph 13} are sought to be pressed into
service in this regard.
Om Parkash Agarwal Etc.Etc vs Giri Raj Kishori & Ors. Etc.Etc on 28 January, 1986
21. There is a contention for the Petitioners that the levy of Cess is
virtually a tax in disguise and that no tax can be levied without any authority
of law, by virtue of mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
There is also a contention that in case of any Cess, there must be co-relation
between levy and the services rendered (cess or fee) revealing the 'quid-
pro-quo'. The verdicts passed by the Apex Court in Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha, Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt, {AIR 1954 SC 282, paragraph 44 to 51}, Jaora Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, {AIR 1966 SC 416, para 19}, Om Prakash
Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishore {AIR 1986 SC 726, paragraphs 7, 10 to 12} and
16
Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan v. Jasjit Singh, Collector of Customs,
Bombay, {AIR 1962 SC 204, paragraph 13} are sought to be pressed into
service in this regard.
Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors on 19 October, 2010
25. The Petitioners attack Annexure P/1 order referring to the violation
of the principles of natural justice as well, in so far as no notice or opportunity
of hearing was given; nor any assessment was made as to the determination
of the quantum of liability, unlike in the case of assessment of tax under
various statutes. The fixation of liability towards the EDC is clear and certain,
by virtue of the rate/quantum mentioned under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act.
The liability of the Distributor to satisfy the Cess at the above rate with
respect to number of units and the necessity to file return under Rule 7(1) of
the Rules, 1949 before the Electrical Inspector are also clear and definite.
Since the number of units sold/supplied/ used by the Distributor is clearly
within the knowledge of the Distributor and since the 'rate per unit' is also
clearly stipulated in the statute itself, the rest is for the Petitioner/Distributor to
show the relevant figures in the return to be filed before the Electrical
Inspector after satisfaction of the duty in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1949.
There is no ambiguity/obscurity in any manner and the statute does not
envisage issuance of any notice as to the fixation of liability. This is
something like the satisfaction of the tax payable in respect of motor vehicles
under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and such other similar statutes. When
the statute is a 'self-contained' one as to the rate and the manner of
satisfaction, fixing the extent of liability upon the Distributor, the alleged
violation of the principles of natural justice with reference to non-issuance of
19
notice or opportunity of hearing is not correct or sustainable and is
unfounded. This being the position, the reliance sought to be placed on
Kothari Filament v. Commissioner of Customs {(2009) 2 SCC 198
paragraph 15}, Municipal Committee, Hosiarpur v. Punjab State
Electricity Board, {(2010) 13 SCC 216, paragraphs 31 to 36}, Kesar
Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, {(2011) 13 SCC 711,
paragraphs 23, 30 to 36} and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. Union of India,
{(1981) 1 SCC 664, paragraphs 21 to 45} in respect of the violation of
principles of natural justice is quite out of context and is not applicable.