Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.59 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 245D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 245I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Nirmal And Navin P. Ltd. And Ors. vs D. Ravindran on 4 April, 2002
14. Referring to the decision of the apex court in Nirmal & Navin (P.) Ltd. v. D. Ravindran , it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the immunity and finality as provided by Section 245-I is not one that is confined, but would extend to transactions covered by the order of the Settlement Commission. That decision relates to the prosecution under the Income-tax Act itself and the law laid down was that the transactions obtain immunity from being the cause of action for prosecution under the Income-tax Act. The same is no authority applicable in favour of the petitioner, on the issue at hand.
S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982
13. In the counter-affidavit of the assessing authority under the KGST Act, it is contended that since, in terms of Lists I and II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the making of the Income-tax Act falls under the relevant legislative heads in the Union List and the competence to legislate the KGST Act is referable exclusively to the relevant legislative head, namely, entry 54, in the State List, the provisions in Section 245-I of the Income-tax Act, as to the conclusiveness of the orders passed under Section 245D(4) of that Act and prohibition therein against reopening, cannot, at any rate, apply in such a manner as to affect any proceedings under the KGST Act. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that Section 245-I of the Income-tax Act is a piece of residual legislation, available in the exclusive domain of Parliament in view of entry 97 in the Union List and that therefore it has to be held to apply to affect and impair any proceedings under the KGST Act. This argument is only to be repelled because the provision of Section 245-I in Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, is predominantly relatable to collection and enforcement under the Income-tax Act and the fields covered by the KGST Act and the Income-tax Act are referable to their respective distinct and exclusive legislative heads under the State List and the Union List respectively. No other inference is possible, even on application of the pith and substance rule, as suggested on behalf of the petitioner. The reference made on its behalf to the decision of the apex court in S.P. Mittal v. Union of India is also of no aid to the petitioner, since even that case was decided by holding that the subject-matter of the legislation made by the Union, that fell for consideration in that case, was not a subject in the State List.
1