Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.27 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Finance Act, 2020
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Finance Act, 2018
India Carbon Ltd., Etc vs The State Of Assam on 16 July, 1997
25. In view of the position of facts and law, it has been argued that there is no doubt that the amendment and introduction of Section Section 9(2B) is retrospective in nature and by separate provision validation has been done and the contention of the petitioner in this regard is misconceived. It was then submitted that though by earlier amendment in the Central Sales Tax Act by amendment of 1976 the word "interest" was added in Section 9 and validation was also made, but in view of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in India Carbon's case [1997] 106 STC 460 the aforesaid amendment was insufficient as no interest was provided under the substantive provision and therefore the validation had no effect now when the provisions have been made with retrospective effect and validation section has been introduced. So far as the ground of limitation is concerned, it has been submitted that it is a question of fact as to when the limitation is to commence and as to when the tax would become due in the facts of each case and this question should be left to be decided by the assessing authority in the light of guiding principles laid down by the various courts which can be applied by the assessing officers and if the petitioners have any grievance the same can be raised before the appropriate authority.
J.K. Synthetics Ltd vs Commercial Taxes Officer on 9 May, 1994
v. Lal and Co. , Jani (J.P.), Income-tax Officer v. Indu Prasad Dev Shanker Bhatt , Warangal District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh , Commercial Taxes Officer v. Zoraster & Co. [1993] 89 STC 462 (Raj), State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal , Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer , J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer , Frick India Limited v. State of Haryana , Oswal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1996] 103 STC 491 (P & H), India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam , Evershine Plastics v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax Office, Special Circle, Kannur District , Maruti Value Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Mattancherry , Smt. Tej Kumari v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2001] 247 ITR 210 (Pat) [FB], Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Refreshment Centre, Meerut [2000] UPTC 889 (AIL).
Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr. Etc on 6 May, 1983
4. That Section 9(2A) was amended retrospectively, validity of which was considered in Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. Union of India [1983] 53 STC 289. The said decision is not an authority in respect of provisions of Section Section 9(2B) which was inserted only with effect from May 12, 2000. Even the question in this case was different from the present case.