Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Section 24 in The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 269UD in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Harbans Singh Tuli And Sons Builders ... vs Union Of India on 11 February, 1992
In Sona Builders (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
concerned with a case of failure of natural justice because
hardly two to three effective days were granted to the
Appellant to respond to a notice of compulsory purchase
under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act. The appropriate
authority had two months to act from the end of the month in
which the 37(I) form was filed. However, the appropriate
authority did not act until only one week from the last
available date. Then, the appropriate authority gave the
appellant, in reality, only three days to respond. The Court
held that this was, plainly, most inadequate. The Court noted
that no documents or sale instances were furnished by the
appropriate authority to the appellant, nor was any sufficient
time granted to reasonably enable the appellant to oppose the
notice of compulsory purchase.
M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015
28. Mr Shah submitted that remand, in the gross facts and
circumstances of the present case, would operate harshly
upon the Petitioners, mainly since the assessment was in
respect of FY 2013-2014. He relied on Sona Builders Vs Union
of India & Ors.1, Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner
of Central Excise, Kolkata-II2, Mohit Trading Pvt Ltd Vs Union of
India & Ors.3 and Chetak Technology Ltd Vs Union of India 4 to
urge why, after setting aside the impugned assessment order
dated 14 March 2022, no remand should be ordered.
Bachhittar Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 16 September, 2011
In Bachhittar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.5, the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that to make the opinion of any government official amount
to a decision of the government, it must be communicated to
the person concerned. The Court held that it is of the essence
that the order has to be communicated who would be affected
by that order before the state and that order can bind the
person. Until the order is communicated to the person
affected by it, it would be open to the decision maker to
consider the matter over and over again; therefore, until its
communication, the order cannot be regarded as anything
more than provisional in character.
R.S. Garg vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 27 July, 2006
In R S Garg vs State of UP & Ors. 6, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court explained the differences between "malice in law" and
"malice in fact". Any action resorted to for an unauthorised
purpose would constitute malice in law. The Court explained
that 'malice' in its legal sense means malice such as may be
assumed for a wrongful act done intentionally but without
just cause or excuse or for one of the reasonable or probable
causes. The term 'malice on fact' would come within the
purview of such a definition.
Indian Companies Act, 1913
S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994
40. The principle has also been narrated briefly in S R
Ventakram Vs Union of India7 in the following terms:-