Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Section 2 in Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Ayurveda Pharmacy & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 March, 1989
17) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ayurveda Pharmacy's case
(supra) also held that it was not satisfied with the reason given by
the State for imposition of a higher rate of tax on a commodity
belonging to the same class or category, i.e. medicinal
preparation.
M/S. Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 April, 2008
18) Hon'ble Apex Court in Mauri Yeast India Private
Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, (2008) 5
SCC 680 has dealt with a question as to whether 'yeast' could be
covered by the entry 'chemicals of all kinds' or not. Hon'ble Apex
Court held that if there is a conflict between two entries wherein
one leading to the tariff entry and another to the residuary entry,
the former should be preferred. It was also held as follows:
Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda, ... on 16 January, 1990
31. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Revenue that the goods were
classifiable under Heading 38.23 (now 38.24) as
'residual products of the chemical or allied
industries, not elsewhere specified or included'
which was the last item covered by Heading 38.23.
The said Heading 38.23 is only a residuary heading
covering residual product of chemical or allied
industries 'not elsewhere specified or included'. In
the present case since the goods were covered by a
specific heading i.e. Heading 25.01, the same cannot
be classified under the residuary heading at all. This
position is clearly laid down Rule 3(a) of the
Interpretative Rules set out above. As per the said
Interpretative Rule 3(a), the heading which
provides the most specific description shall be
preferred to the heading providing a more general
description. This position is also well settled by a
number of judgments of this Court. Reference may
be made to Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P)
Ltd. v CCE (1990) 1 SCC 532. It was observed in
para 4 inter alia as under:
Kumaun Stone Crusher Association And ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 April, 2012
52. As noted above both the State of Uttarakhand and
State of U.P. have challenged the judgment of
Uttarakhand High Court. Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned
senior counsel questioning the judgment dated
01.07.2004 of Uttarakhand High Court in M/s. Kumaon
Stone Crusher vs State of Uttarakhand, submits that
boulders crushed into grits retain same characteristic
that is forest produce. By obtaining grits, stone chips
and dust no new material is obtained. Challenging the
judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in M/s. Gupta
Builders dated 26.06.2007, it is submitted that the mere
fact that royalty has been paid by the writ petitioners in
accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral
(Concession) Rules, 1963 as adopted in Uttarakhand by
Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2001
shall have no effect on the entitlement of the State to levy
transit fee. The judgment of the High court that no
transit fee can be levied on the minerals is erroneous. It
is further submitted that the High Court erred in
adopting a very restrictive meaning of word 'forest'
whereas the forest has to be understood in a wide sense.
It is contended that Forest Act, 1927 and MMDR Act,
1957 operate in different fields. In so far as the case of
the writ petitioners is that transit fee is being charged
for second transit also. It is submitted that transit pass
has its destination and after it reaches its destination,
the pass comes to an end, the transit fee can be validly
charged.
Reliable Rocks Builders And Suppliers vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 31 July, 1980
In the above case, the appellant was
charged for violation of Rule 3 to 7 of the A.P.
Sandalwood and Red Sanderswood Transit Rules, 1969.
The assesses was found transporting finished
sandalwood products. He was charged with the
violation of aforesaid rules.
Karnataka Forest Devlp. Corpn. Ltd vs Cantreads Pvt. Ltd on 15 April, 1994
In this context, it is necessary to refer to a Three
Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Karnataka
Forest Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Cantreads
Private Limited and others (1994) 4 SCC 455. This Court
had occasion to consider Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
Caoulchouc or latex covers natural covering sheets of
various grades or not, was the question under
consideration. After noticing the various dictionary
meanings of caoutchouc, it was held that since
processing does not result in brining out a new
commodity but it preserves the same and rendered it fit
for markets, it does not change its character hence, it
remained a Forest Produce. Thus rubber sheets
converted from caoutchouc continue to be a Forest
Produce. In the above case, this court has also held that a
'test of commercial parlance' by considering entries in
sales tax is not applicable while considering the
definition of Forest Produce.