Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
G. Sriramulu Naidu And I. Chengama Naidu ... vs Commercial Tax Officer And Anr. on 26 February, 1974
cites
Tholasi Venkatamunuswamy Chetty And ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer And Anr. on 15 November, 1972
5. M. Krishna Rao, J., who heard the writ petitions (Tholasi Venkata-munuswamy Chetty & Sons v. Commercial Tax Officer [1974] 33 S.T.C. 497) dismissed them on the ground that the ryots are dealers within the definition of "dealer" given in Section 2(e) read with the second explanation.
United Motors (India) Ltd. And Ors. vs The State Of Bombay And Anr. on 11 December, 1952
15. An explanation very often, as here, introduces a legal fiction and treats the legal fiction as a reality contained in the section itself: see United Motors (India) Ltd. v. State of Bombay 55 Bom.
The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
18. It follows therefore that the meaning to be given to the explanation must depend upon its own terms. It must be interpreted according to its own tenor. If the language of the provision is clear and unambiguous it should be unhesitatingly accepted without any demur, whatever may be the caption or title given to such a provision. The mere description of a certain provision such as explanation is not decisive of its true meaning. If the language of the provision is clear it will prevail over the title if it is wrongly given. The interpretation must obviously depend upon the words used in the provision. The safest course in such cases is to apply the fundamental general rule to construe the explanation according to its own terms having regard to its context and setting. It is of course true that if the provision is capable of two interpretations, one in accordance with the title and the other inconsistent with it, then the one in accordance with the title must be accepted : see State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 252 at 258.
Section 9 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Balaji Singh vs Chakka Gangamma And Anr. on 6 August, 1926
13. It is plain that when any phrase, word, expression or provision in an enactment is explained by the legislature, the provision has to be applied with the authoritative explanation ; for the very object of the authoritative explanation is to enable the court to understand the provision in the light of the explanation : see Balaji Singh v. Chakka Gangamma A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 85 at 88.
South Indian Co-Operative Insurance ... vs V. Bapi Raju on 7 April, 1955
17. An explanation to a section makes plain or intelligible or clears from obscurity something which may arise from the section. What is plain is that an explanation has to be interpreted within the scope of what it purports to be, i. e., something which "explains" the section and it may do so by clarification of some doubt or by way of an addition or subtraction, either expressly or by introducing a legal fiction: see South Indian Cooperative Insurance Society v. Bapi Raju A.I.R. 1955 Mad 694 at 696.
1