Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.03 seconds)
Belpahar Refractories Ltd. vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 3 March, 1970 cites

The Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. vs The State Of Orissa And Ors. on 10 July, 1969

3. So far as Rule 12(10) is concerned, the matter is concluded by the decision of this court reported in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 35 C.L.T. 876, where a Division Bench held that Rule 12(10) is ultra vires in so far as it insists on attaching the declarations to the returns furnished by the assessee. It was held that the declarations can be filed within a reasonable time before assessment is made. What would be the reasonble time would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The decision went so far as to say that if sufficient explanation is furnished, the declaration can be accepted even at the appellate stage. In view of this decision, our answer to question No. 2 would be that the declaration form cannot be rejected merely because it was not filed along with, the return.
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

State Of Madras vs R.Nand Lal & Co on 14 April, 1967

6. This question came up directly for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal [1967] 20 S.T.C. 374 (S.C.), where their Lordships construed Rule 10(1) proviso (a) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, which is almost identical in terms with the impugned Orissa rule. Their Lordships held that the authority to prescribe that a single declaration covering more than one transaction shall not be made, cannot have its source inSection 13(3) or Section 13(4)(e) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; it can only be in the authority conferred by Section 13(1)(d) on the Central Government and the State Government cannot exercise that authority. Accordingly the Madras rule was declared ultra vires. On the same principle, the impugned Orissa Rule 6(a)(ii) proviso is ultra vires ; it is open to a dealer to give one declaration form covering more than Rs. 5,000 consisting of different transactions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - J C Shah - Full Document
1