Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (1.92 seconds)
Rapti Commission Agency vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 8 July, 2003 cites

Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs State Of Orissa & Ors. Etc. Etc on 25 February, 2000

31. We come now to the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on which he has heavily relied, namely, that Section 8-E has to be struck down in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Steel Authority of India Limited v. State of Orissa [2000] 118 STC 297 ; 2000 UPTC 374 and Nathpa Jhakri's case [2000] 118 STC 306 ; 2000 UPTC 459. Under entry 92A of List I of the Seventh Schedule, inter-State sales can only be taxed by Parliament, but, it is submitted, Section 8-E makes no distinction between intra-State sales and inter-State sales.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675 the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894, which provides for solitary confinement of a prisoner under sentences of death in a cell and Section 56 of the same Act, which provides for the confinement of a prisoner in irons for his safe custody, by construing these provisions narrowly so as to avoid their being declared invalid on the ground that they were violative of the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 442 - V R Iyer - Full Document

M/S Nathpa Jhakri Jt. Venture vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 14 March, 2000

31. We come now to the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on which he has heavily relied, namely, that Section 8-E has to be struck down in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Steel Authority of India Limited v. State of Orissa [2000] 118 STC 297 ; 2000 UPTC 374 and Nathpa Jhakri's case [2000] 118 STC 306 ; 2000 UPTC 459. Under entry 92A of List I of the Seventh Schedule, inter-State sales can only be taxed by Parliament, but, it is submitted, Section 8-E makes no distinction between intra-State sales and inter-State sales.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors vs Director Of Enforcement, New Delhi on 23 July, 1969

In Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi AIR 1970 SC 494 (vide paragraph 7) (which is also a Constitution Bench decision) the Supreme Court in order to validate the law took a view that whenever there is contravention by any person punishable under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 23D(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the Director of Enforcement must first initiate proceedings under the principal clause of Section 23D(1), and he is empowered to file complaint in court only when he finds that he is required to do so in accordance with the proviso to Section 23D(1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 221 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Corporation Of Calcutta And Another vs Liberty Cinema on 14 December, 1964

In Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema AIR 1965 SC 1107 (vide paragraph 9) the Supreme Court observed that a statute has to be read so as to make it valid and, if possible, an interpretation leading to a contrary position should be avoided ; it has to be construed ut res magis valeat quam pareat [vide Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Ed.) p. 361, Craies on Statute (6th Ed.) p. 95, Maxwell on Statutes (11th Ed.) p. 221, and Cooley's "Constitutional limitations"]. In aforesaid decision the word "fee" in Section 548 of the Calcutta Municipality Act was read as meaning a tax, for any other reading would make the section invalid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 462 - A K Sarkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next