Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.44 seconds)
The South India Hosiery Manufacturers ... vs Textiles Committee, South Zone And Ors. on 7 December, 2001 cites

Sirsilk Ltd. And Another vs Textiles Committee & Ors on 12 September, 1988

15. Before winding up, It is also useful to refer a judgment of the Supreme Court in The Sirsilk Ltd, v. The Textiles Committee, , wherein Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the very same provisions of the Textiles Committee Act and the rules made thereunder. After referring to the expression "textiles" as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. Their Lordships have held that in the premises, the expression 'textiles' as defined in Section 2(g) has to be given a broad and liberal construction, in furtherance of the purpose and object of the Act. They also held that the particular words 'used by the legislature i.e. the terms yarn, man made fibres, otherwise known as artificial silk' therefore had to be understood according to the common commercial understanding of the terms used, and not in their scientific or technical sense. They further held that the Act is not a scientific treatise on organic or inorganic chemistry but is an enactment by the Parliament for the benefit of the indigenous textile industry, so that it may be able to hold its own in a fiercely competitive international market. They also held that there is no reason for Parliament to have left out man made fibres like viscose staple fibre, rayon yarn and nylon yarn from the purview of the definition of textiles in Section 2(g) prior to its amendment particularly when synthetic fibres have a world market and India has entered into a competitive international trade in all textiles in a large way. In the very same decision. Their Lordships have also upheld the provisions of the Act and Rules. They also held that when the levy of the fee is for the benefit of the entire textile industry, there is sufficient quid pro quo between the levy recovered and the services rendered to the industry as a whole, Further, the notification dated 1-6-1977 issued by the Government of India deals with the increase of Cess from 0.025% to 0.050% advalorem from 1-6-1977 from all manufacturers of Textiles and Textile machinery in terms of sub-section of Section 5-A. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also filed typed set of papers containing notice of demand under the Rules which shows the value of textiles on which cess is levied and the amount of cess at 0.05 per cent advalorem. The cess levied is very negligible compared to the value of textiles. Further, even though this court has granted injunction subject to the condition the petitioner pays 50 per cent of the demand. it is fairly stated that the said conditional order has not been complied with I have already referred to the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as in the counter affidavit that in spite of the pendency of the writ petition, there are many garment/ hosiery manufacturers and exporters submitting their returns and pay cess to the committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act and only few members of petitioner Association has not submitted the return and paid cess. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that no one has challenged the power of the Government nor the provisions of the Act and Rules as illegal or irrational in India. On the other hand, it was brought to my notice various orders passed by this Court, and the Karnataka High Court as well as the Andhra Pradesh High Court, directing the Assessing Officer to provide adequate opportunity, namely, notice and [personal hearing before passing assessment orders. I have already referred to that notice and adequate opportunity of being heard are provided in the Rules and the same have been reiterated in those decisions-vide order of R. Jayaslmha Babu, J. , in W.P. No. 2416 of 94 dated 3-8-2001; order of S. Rajendra Babu, J., (as he then was) in W.P. No. 2805 of 94 connected with W.P. Nos. 2802 and 2318 of 94 dated 29-7-1994; order of V. K. Singhal, J.. in W.P. No. 17762 of 94 dated 21-9-1998; order of H.L. Dattu, J., in W.P. Nos. 1848 to 1849 of 1995 dated 24-11-1998; and the Division Bench order of Andhra Pradesh High Court, consisting of S.R. Nayak and S. Ananda Reddy, JJ., in W.P. No. 13171 of 2000 dated 17-10-2000.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 66 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next