Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.87 seconds)Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 2 August, 1991
In Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. (supra), following observations have been made in para 11, which is reproduced:-
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Industrial Coal Enterprises on 24 February, 1999
In Commissioner of Sales Tax (supra), following observations are made in paras 6, 11 and 12 and are reproduced:-
State Level Committee & Anr vs M/S Morgardshammar India Ltd on 10 November, 1995
In State Level Committee (supra), whereupon reliance is placed by the revenue, following observations have been made in Para-14 and are reproduced:-
Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/S. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors on 18 November, 2010
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Constitution Bench judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) and in view of the discussions aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that possessing of land for establishment of new unit although constitutes the mandatory or substantive part of exemption notification but mode of acquisition of land is wholly directory, and its non-compliance would not affect the essence or substance of the notification in question, granting exemption.
Hansraj Gordhandas vs H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector Of ... on 27 September, 1968
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave (1996) 2 SCR 253, held that-
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amritsar vs Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd on 28 April, 1989
In Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.C. 523, this Court held that in taxing statutes, provision for concessional rate of tax should be liberally construed.
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992
12. We find that the object of granting exemption from payment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investment and establishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of industry in the State. If the test laid down in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. case (supra) is applied, there is no doubt whatever that the exemption granted to the respondent from 9.8.85 when it fulfilled all the prescribed conditions will not cease to operate just because the capital investment exceeded the limit of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of the respondent becoming the owner of land and building to which the unit was shifted. If the construction sought to be placed by the appellant is accepted, the very purpose and object of the grant of exemption will be defeated. After all, the respondent had only shifted the unit to its own premises which made it much more convenient and easier for the respondent to carry on the production of the goods undisturbed by the vagaries of the lessor and without any necessity to spend a part of its income on rent. It is not the case of the appellant that there was any mala fides on the part of the respondent in obtaining exemption in the first instance as a unit with a capital investment below Rs. 3 lakhs and increasing the capital investment subsequently to an amount exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs with a view to defeat the provisions of any of the relevant statutes. The bona fides of the respondent have never been questioned by the appellant."
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Orissa & Ors vs M/S. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd on 18 September, 2007
35. It is not a case where the application was incomplete by itself. It was also not a case where having regard to the provisions of the Act, Rules, Notifications as also the information required to be furnished in terms of paragraph 10 of Form 46, any other or further information was necessary to be obtained or furnished. If the appellant, thus, had fulfilled the eligibility criteria for grant of exemption, it had acquired a right in respect thereof and we see no reason why it should have been deprived therefrom. It is in that sense the exemption notification was required to be construed liberally in favour of the appellant. {See State of Orissa & Ors. V. TATA Sponge Iron Ltd. [(2007) (8) SCC 189 para 21]."
1