Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)

Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 1975

28. A debate on this aspect would not be complete without noticing the ruling in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company (supra). In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 5(2)(a) prescribes an exemption and, therefore, requires to be strictly construed. Following observations, in the opinion of this Court, are extremely pertinent for the purpose of decision in this case:
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 106 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Orissa Cement Ltd. vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 22 April, 1970

If one were to keep this aspect in mind, then Orissa Cement (supra), on the other, suggests that rebate for timely payment - provided for in the State law - can be extended by virtue of Section 9(2) as it is intrinsically linked to the concept of tax collection which falls properly within Section 9(2). In the present case, the condition for grant of benefit, i.e., the benefit under Section 5(3) and 5(4), subject to production of prescribed declarations, is engrafted within the main statute, i.e. Central Sales Tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next