Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Industrial Coal Enterprises on 24 February, 1999 cites

M/S Pappu Sweets And Biscuits vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow on 6 October, 1998

8. Our attention has also been drawn to another case under Section 4-A which came up before this Court in Pappu Sweets and Biscuits and Another v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, [1998] 7 S.C.C. 228. Far from helping the appellant, the ruling can be used against the appellant as it is held that the object of the relevant Exemption Notification and the intention of the State Government in granting exemption are to be taken into account for interpreting the word "sweetmeat" and the words "condi- tions of like nature".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992

12. We find that the object of granting exemption from payment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investment and estab-lishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of industry in the State. If the test laid down in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. case (supra) is applied, there is no doubt whatever that the exemption granted to the respondent from 9.8.85 when it fulfilled all the prescribed conditions will not cease to operate just because the capital investment exceeded the limit of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of the respondent becoming the owner of land and building to which the unit was shifted. If the construction sought to be placed by the appellant is accepted, the very purpose and object of the grant of exemption will be defeated. After all, the respondent had only shifted the unit to its own premises which made it much more convenient and easier for the respon-dent to carry on the production of the goods undisturbed by the vagaries of the lessor and without any necessity to spend a part of its income on rent. It is not the case of the appellant that there was any mala fides on the part of the respondent in obtaining exemption in the first instance as a unit with a capital investment below Rs. 3 lakhs and increasing the capital investment subsequently to an amount exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs with a view to defeat the provisions of any of the relevant statutes. The bona fides of the respondent have never been questioned by the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 590 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad vs Collector Of Central Excise And ... on 14 September, 1994

A Bench of two Judges of this Court relied upon an earlier decision of Three Judge Bench in Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, [1994] Supp. 3 S.C.C. 606 and held that an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the Court to ignore the conditions prescribed in Section 4-A of the Act and extend the exemption. Though the decision pertains to exemption under Section 4-A of the Act, the facts of the case are entirely different and the ruling has to be understood in the context thereof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 289 - Full Document

Divisional Level Committee And Anr. vs Sahu Stone Crushing Industries on 21 March, 1996

9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Divisional Level Committee and Another v. Sahu Stone Crushing Industries, [1998] 8 S.C.C. 435. In that case, it is held that the provision in Section 4-A(5) c requiring registration of the unit under the Factories Act if the capital investment exceeds Rs. 3 lakhs is mandatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1