Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.39 seconds)Pardeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana vs State Of Punjab & Others on 23 October, 1997
6. Mr. GKV Murthy, has referred to the decision given in the case of Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 171 on the point that if articles are specified separately and others are grouped together in respect of items which are grouped together each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein. This interpretation was taken by the Apex Court on the principle of noseitur a sociis. While interpreting the word 'luxury' it was held by the Apex Court that it has no application to Dhoop and Agarabatti.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981
8. Reliance is also placed on the decision given in the case of I.T. Commissioner. Bangalore v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, , wherein the Apex Court has made the following observations :
Express Hotels Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 2 May, 1989
11. Tax on luxuries contemplated under Entry 62 of the List II came for interpretation before the Apex Court in Express Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat. . After taking into consideration the definition of 'luxury' as set out in Encyclopedia Britannica and in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, and the New Dictionary of Thoughts it was observed that the concept of tax on luxuries in Entry 62. List II cannot be limited merely to tax things tangible and corporeal in their aspect as 'luxuries'. It is true that while frugal or simple food and medicine may be classified as necessities, articles such as jewellery, perfume, intoxicating liquor, tobacco, etc. could be called articles of luxury. But the legislative entry cannot be exhausted by these cases, illustrative of the concept. The entry encompasses all the manifestations or emanations, the notion of 'luxuries' can fairly and reasonably can be said to comprehend the element of extravagance or indulgence that differentiates 'luxury' from 'necessity' cannot be confined to goods and articles. There can be elements of extravagance or indulgence in the quality of services and activities.
A.B. Abdul Kadir & Ors Etc vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 1975
13. The validity of including telephone charges was not specifically disputed in the case of Express Hotels Pvt. Ltd., , but the principles which have been laid down in the said case include the facilities as well. Apart from the hotels which do not provide the facility of telephone, the hotels which provide telephone facility therefore provide a better amenity to the customer which could be considered to be a 'luxury provided in a hotel' and it cannot be considered that Entry 62 List II to the Constitution of India does not cover the receipts of account of telephone charges collected from the customer for outgoing calls.
Collector Of Central Excise, Patna vs Usha Martin Industries on 28 August, 1997
In these circumstances the following order is passed in the light of the judgment in Collector of Central Excise v. Usha Martin Industries, .