Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)M/S. Electronics Corporation Of India ... vs Secretary,Revenue Dept,Govt.Of ... on 5 May, 1999
18. Question arose before the Apex Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and others Vs. Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others: (1999) 4 SCC 458 that the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., being an undertaking of the Government of India and that being wholly Government owned company, therefore, would not be liable to be taxed by virtue of Article 285 of the Constitution. However, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the said company was a limited company, a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members and that property of the company is not the property of the shareholder and a distinction has to be drawn between the company and its shareholder even though the shareholder may be only one and in the eye of law, a company, registered under the Companies Act, is a distinct legal entity other than the legal entity or entities that holds its shares and accordingly came to the conclusion that no exemption was available to the said company.
Municipal Commissioner Of Dum ... vs Indian Tourism Development ... on 1 August, 1995
In Municipal Commissioner of Dum Dum Municipality and others Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation and others: (1995) 5 SCC 251 the Hon'ble Apex Court had also an occasion to consider a case of property tax having been imposed by Municipality on the International Airport Authority of India and the Apex Court, after analyzing the scheme of the Act, came to a conclusion that the said authority is a statutory body and a distinct juristic entity created for carrying on business under Article 298 and the properties, which were vested in the Authority, ceased to be those of the Union of India for the purpose of Article 285 and held as under:-
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 298 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 12 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vs The Sr.Supdt. Of Post Offices,Amritsar ... on 21 January, 2004
4. It is contended by ld. counsel for the petitioner that Rule 28(b) is ultravires to the Constitution and despite the fact that the petitioner may have been converted into a limited company but still it continues to be a Government Undertaking and therefore, under Rule 28(b), neither tax nor penalty could be levied. He further contended that though vide Notification dt.25/08/1981, the petitioner has been notified as a commercial undertaking w.e.f 01/04/1981 and the petitioner-company was incorporated on 17/09/1987 and when from 01/04/1981 to 16/09/1987, the company itself was not in existence, the question of charge of tax, interest and penalty does not arise and in support of submission, he relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Amritsar Division and another: 2004 (3) SCC 92.
The Companies Act, 1956
M/S Nuclear Power Corporation Of India vs State Of Rajasthan . on 15 May, 2015
11. This Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.1550/1990, referred to above, vide order dt. 01/05/1992, after examining the controversy at hand, came to the conclusion that the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 was intravires and there is nothing wrong in the said rules having been introduced by the State of Rajasthan. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant observations made in this regard in the order dt. 01/05/1992, which reads ad-indra:-
1