Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Kamta Prasad Aggarwal Etc vs Executive Officer, Ballabgarh & Anr on 20 December, 1973
20. Similarly in the case of Kamta Prasad Aggrawal v. Executive Officer, Ballabgarh reported in [1974] 2 SCR 827 ; AIR 1974 SC 685 (Constitution Bench), in paragraphs 11 and 12 of Kamta Prasad case [1974] 2 SCR 827 ; AIR 1974 SC 685, while construing the provisions of Article 276 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that the word "or" used in Article 276 is in a disjunctive sense. In paragraph 12, the honourable apex Court has held that the provisions arc clear in their effect and the word "or" occurring between the words "State" and "to any one municipality" cannot be road as and in conjunctive sense.
Article 276 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Babu Manmohan Das Shah & Ors vs Bishun Das on 12 October, 1966
19. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Das Shah v. Bishun Das [1967] 1 SCR 836 at 839 ; AIR 1967 SC 643 at 645 second column middle, the honourable Supremo Court has held as under :
The Companies Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Industrial Coal Enterprises on 24 February, 1999
27. It may be stated here that in view of the preamble of the Notification No. 780 dated March 31, 1995 quoted above, the purpose of granting exemption to a unit undertaking expansion was to promote development of industries in the State. Hence, in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises reported in [1999] 114 STC 365; (1999) 14 NTN 210, the construction of explanation (5) and the notification issued thereunder should be reasonable and in a purposive manner so as to achieve the object of the notification dated March 31, 1995 as held in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Industrial Coal Enterprises [1999] 114 STC 365 (SO ; (1999) 14 NTN 210.
The U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904
Kajaria Ceramics Limited vs Trade Tax Tribunal And Ors. on 13 January, 2000
The question whether explanation (5) to Section 4-A provides for field of eligibility was considered by this Court in Kajaria Ceramics Limited v. Trade Tax Tribunal [2000] 120 STC 117 ; 2000 UPTC 154. It was held by this Court in paragraphs 9 and 18 (at pages 130 and 138 of STC 170 and 176 respectively) as follows :
R. S. Nayak vs A. R. Antulay on 16 February, 1984
In this connection paragraph 45 of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Naik v. A.R. Antuley (1984) 2 SCC 183, is relevant which is reproduced below :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta, ... vs Imperial Chemical Industries (India) ... on 20 February, 1969
23. The explanation (5) and explanation (6) are piece of legislation which have been enacted by Legislature and not by the Government. Hence, if the circular has been issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax on the opinion of the State Government, it cannot override the statutory provisions. The circular dated September 6, 1999 being a piece of executive instruction may be binding on the department but neither on the assessee nor on the court in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Indra Industries reported in [2001] 122 STC 100 ; 2000 UPTC 472 wherein it has been held that the circular of the Commissioner of Trade Tax even if it is erroneous, may be binding on the trade tax authorities but not on the dealer and the court.