Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.33 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Trikamdas Udeshi vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 19 November, 1953
On the contrary, the decisions of Chagla C. J., in Trikamdas v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, and of the Nagpur High Court in AIR 1949 Nag 215 are definitely against the contention pressed upon me by the learned Government Pleader.
Indian Steel And Wire Products Ltd. vs Superintendent Of Commercial Taxes And ... on 5 October, 1956
The principle of the decision of the Patna High Court in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, is also in conformity with the principle of the above two decisions.
M/S. Sainik Motors, Jodhpur And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 March, 1961
22. It is lastly contended by the learned Government Pleader that because the taxes were compounded under Section 4 of the Act, they cannot be recovered. I am unable to assent to this proposition. The compounding of taxes under Section 4 of the Act is obviously intended for the convenience of all parties by obviating the need to submit the monthly returns and for the meticulous examination of the same. The character of the money paid by way of composition is still the same. A money paid by way of composition does not shed its character as a tax (Vide the observations of the Supreme Court in Sainik Motors, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan, ).