Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.33 seconds)Section 94 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 1999
Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. on 19 May, 2022
There is no dispute that such relief as
prayed for stands covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of
India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd(supra).
Section 64 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail) vs The Union Of India Through Deputy Labour ... on 19 October, 2022
5 MANU/SC/1203/1997
Page 15 of 16
12th February, 2024
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2024 08:46:00 :::
WP-184-2019.DOC
Order
i. The impugned Notifications at Exhibits-A and F are held to be illegal as
held by the Gujarat High Court in SAL Steel Ltd(supra).
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
16. Mr. Mishra's contention that the Petitioner had voluntarily deposited the
amount and hence the Petitioner would not be correct in seeking any refund, is
also not acceptable. Any such deposit or even demand would certainly be
without authority in law and therefore violative of Article 265 of the
Constitution. The observations in this regard as made by the Madras High
Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Vs.
Union of India5, in our opinion, are apposite. It would be thus necessary that
the Petitioner makes a refund application claiming the said amount, which
would be required to be decided on its own merit.
Section 94 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Service Tax vs Kiri Dyes And Chemicals Ltd. on 1 September, 2023
12. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was carried in Appeal by the
Revenue before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of
Service Tax, Ahmedabad (supra), dismissed the Civil Appeal filed by the
Revenue by an Order dated 01.09.2023 passed on Civil Appeal Diary
No.2146/2023.