Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.65 seconds)Section 73 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 3 February, 2022
22. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Basanta Kumar
Shaw (supra) has dissented from the decision of the Gujarat
High Court in Samay Alloys India Pvt Ltd (supra). The
Calcutta High Court has reasoned that Rule 86-A does not use
the expression "negative blocking" and therefore, such a
theory cannot be imported to justify the contention that there
should be a positive balance to invoke Rule 86-A. The Court
has also held that there was no requirement under Rule 86-A
that the Electronic Credit Ledger should contain a sufficient
balance to block the credit by invoking the Rule. The Court
held that the Gujarat High Court's view, while laying excessive
emphasis on the word "available", has not given due credence
to the words "has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible".
Bhinka And Others vs Charan Singh on 24 April, 1959
15. The Gujarat High Court also took cognisance of the
heading of Rule 86-A, which reads "conditions of use of
amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger". The Court
held that on a plain reading of the heading itself, it was
apparent that Rule 86-A could be invoked only if the amount
was available in the Electronic Credit Ledger and not
otherwise. The Court held that it was a settled rule of
interpretation that the section heading or a marginal note
could be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the
interpretation of the provision to discern the legislative intent.
[vide Uttamdas Chela Sunder Das Vs SGPC6 and Bhinka & Ors.
Vs Charan Singh7].
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Kasturi And Sons Ltd on 17 March, 1999
16. The Gujarat High Court, referring to the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax, Madras Vs Kasturi & Sons Ltd 8 and Kapil Mohan
Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi9 held that the principle
that a taxing statute should be strictly construed is well
settled. Furthermore, the Court also held that it has long been
6
(1996) 5 SCC 71
7
AIR 1959 (SC) 906
8
(1993) 3 SCC 346
9
(1999) 1 SCC 450
Page 9 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:40:44 :::
7-WPL-10928-2025 WITH IAL-11003-2025-J-F.DOCX
recognised that tax and equity are strangers. Just as reliance
upon equity does not avail an assessee, so it does not avail the
Revenue. The Court held that the principle of law discernible
from the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court is that
there can be no action based on any supposed intendment of
the provision. Since the plain language of Rule 86-A does not
permit its exercise without the availability of credit, it could
not have been invoked in the case where the ITC was nil on
the date of exercise of the power.
Kapil Mohan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 18 December, 1998
16. The Gujarat High Court, referring to the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax, Madras Vs Kasturi & Sons Ltd 8 and Kapil Mohan
Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi9 held that the principle
that a taxing statute should be strictly construed is well
settled. Furthermore, the Court also held that it has long been
6
(1996) 5 SCC 71
7
AIR 1959 (SC) 906
8
(1993) 3 SCC 346
9
(1999) 1 SCC 450
Page 9 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:40:44 :::
7-WPL-10928-2025 WITH IAL-11003-2025-J-F.DOCX
recognised that tax and equity are strangers. Just as reliance
upon equity does not avail an assessee, so it does not avail the
Revenue. The Court held that the principle of law discernible
from the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court is that
there can be no action based on any supposed intendment of
the provision. Since the plain language of Rule 86-A does not
permit its exercise without the availability of credit, it could
not have been invoked in the case where the ITC was nil on
the date of exercise of the power.
British India General Insurance Co., ... vs Captain Itbar Singh And Others on 11 May, 1959
26. British India General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Captain Itbar
Singh & Ors12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when interpreting
Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that it was
exhaustive of the defenses open to an insurer. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court refused to add the word "also" after the words
"on any of the following grounds" and observed: " this, the
rules of interpretation, do not permit us to do unless the
Section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning".
Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor on 19 January, 1939
v. North British Rly., (1881) 6 AC 114, p. 131 (HL) (LORD
BLACKBURN); Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositors, (1913) AC
107: (1911-13) All ER Rep 241, p. 246 (HL) (LORD MACNAGHTEN);
Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, AIR 1921 PC
240, p. 242 (LORD ATKINSON), Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939
PC 47, p. 51 (LORD ATKINSON); Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR
1973 SC 1461, p. 1538: (1973) 4 SCC 225; Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR
1978 SC 1025, p. 1039: (1978) 2 SCC 424; Chandvarkar Sita Ratna Rao v.
Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, p. 476: AIR 1987 SC 117; Union of
India v. Rajivkumar, (2003) 6 SCC 516, p. 526: AIR 2003 SC 2917.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
v. North British Rly., (1881) 6 AC 114, p. 131 (HL) (LORD
BLACKBURN); Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositors, (1913) AC
107: (1911-13) All ER Rep 241, p. 246 (HL) (LORD MACNAGHTEN);
Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, AIR 1921 PC
240, p. 242 (LORD ATKINSON), Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939
PC 47, p. 51 (LORD ATKINSON); Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR
1973 SC 1461, p. 1538: (1973) 4 SCC 225; Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR
1978 SC 1025, p. 1039: (1978) 2 SCC 424; Chandvarkar Sita Ratna Rao v.
Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, p. 476: AIR 1987 SC 117; Union of
India v. Rajivkumar, (2003) 6 SCC 516, p. 526: AIR 2003 SC 2917.