Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)Thvl Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 1976
"11. The language of this section makes it clear that the suo
motu power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner in regard to
the order or proceeding specified therein is quite wide and he can,
subject to the conditions laid down in sub-sections (2) and (3),
exercise the same even at the instance of an assessee who has
not filed an appeal against the order for the purpose of rectifying
any illegality or impropriety therein.
State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar ... on 20 January, 2016
The
Apex Court at para-17 in the case of State of Gujarat and another
versus Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and another
(supra) while examining the main issue whether the Office of the
President of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was a judicial office or an
administrative office had the occasion to observe that the supervisory or
revisional jurisdiction is considered to be a power vesting in any superior
court or tribunal, enabling it to satisfy itself as regards the correctness of
the orders of the inferior tribunal. This is the basic difference between
appellate and supervisory jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction confers a
right upon the aggrieved person to complain in the prescribed manner to
a higher forum whereas, supervisory/ revisional power has a different
object and purpose altogether as it confers the right and responsibility
upon the higher forum to keep the subordinate tribunals within the limits
of the law. It is for this reason that revisional power can be exercised by
the competent authority/ court suo motu, in order to see that subordinate
tribunals do not transgress the rules of law and are kept within the
framework of powers conferred upon them.
Section 7 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs M/S. Wood Papers Ltd. And Anr on 24 April, 1990
Indeed, the need to resort to any interpretative process
arises only where the meaning is not manifest on the
plain words of the statute. If the words are plain and
clear and directly convey the meaning, there is no need
for any interpretation. It appears to us the true rule of
construction of a provision as to exemption is the one
stated by this Court in Union of India v. Wood Papers
Ltd.
Cce, Meerut I vs M/S Dixon Utilities & Export (P) Ltd on 18 November, 2015
24. Shri Narasimhamurthy again relied on certain
observations in CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd., in support
of strict construction of a provision concerning
exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the
view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to
increase the burden on the other unexempted class of
tax payers and should be construed against the subject
in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well known principle
that a person who claims an exemption has to establish
his case. Indeed, in the very case of Parle Exports (P)
Ltd. relied upon by Sri Narasimhamurthy, it was
observed: (SCC p. 357, para 17)
20
"While interpreting an exemption clause, liberal
interpretation should be imparted to the language
thereof, provided no violence is done to the language
employed. It must, however, be borne in mind that
absurd results of construction should be avoided."
New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... on 12 February, 1957
On the other hand, learned Advocate General has not been able to
counter the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
on this issue, both on facts and in the context of the ratio rendered by the
Apex Court in the case Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. In the case of Amrit
Banaspati Co. Ltd. (supra) the issue was relating to claim of refund of a
tax collected under the statute without any enabling statutory notification
issued thereunder. The State had issued an executive order which was
deprecated by the Apex Court. In the facts of the said case, no claim for
exemption under the Industrial Policy Resolution was under