Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.04 seconds)
A.V.M.Charities vs The Commissioner on 21 December, 2023 cites

Somawanti vs State Of Punjab & Others on 7 November, 2011

In our view, the word ‘previously’ used in sub-Cl. (3), (a) of S. 105 can serve only one public purpose. It is obviously intended to put the taxing authorities on notice of such vacancy or prospective vacancy and alert them to make such investigations as they may be inclined to make to test the truthfulness or correctness of such information. If a notice is cumulative in the sense that it is not only informative of the vacancy but also of the claim for remission in consequence thereof, no prejudice is caused to the taxing authority. Viewed in this light, the delivery of a consolidated notice containing information about the vacancy and coupling it with a claim for remission would not, in our view, be a noncompliance with the provisions of S. 105 of the Act, and much less a departure from this provision By way of analogy, the Supreme Court in Somawanti v. State of Punjab, while considering the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and in a case where the notification under S. 4 and the declaration under S. 6 were contemporaneously made in one notification, expressed the view:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 25 - R Singh - Full Document

S. Ramakrishnan, Srirangam People'S ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its ... on 15 February, 2002

6. The above issue has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramakrishnan vs. Corporation of Madras reported in AIR 1976 Mad 128 wherein it was held that a serving of a consolidated notice containing the information as to vacancy and unletting coupled with the claim of remission would satisfy the requirement of Section 112 of the Act and it may not be open to reject the petitioner's claim only on the premise that an independent notice under Section 105(3) of the Act intimating the vacancy and unletting was not issued prior to the claim for remission. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - A K Rajan - Full Document
1   2 Next