Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Finance Act, 2020
The Amending Act, 1897
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Section 23 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
India Carbon Ltd., Etc vs The State Of Assam on 16 July, 1997
12. Thus by the amendment of Section 9(2), 9(2A) and the introduction of Section 9(2B) by the Finance Act there is substantive provision in the Act itself for imposition of interest and the infirmity pointed out in Khemka's case and in Indian Carbon Ltd. case are removed.
Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 1975
It was held that there is no substantive provision in the Central Act regarding payment of interest on CST and hence in view of the decision in Khemka 's case the demand of interest at 24 percent per annum on delayed payment of CST under the provisions of the State Act must be held to be bad in law. This decision was rendered on 16.7.1997.
The Finance Act, 2018
Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr. Etc on 6 May, 1983
6. I have considered the rival submissions. So far as the legislative competence and the validity of the provision of Section 9(2), 9(2A) and 9(2B) of the CST Act are concerned the very question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Dutt Rai Fatheh Chand & Anothers' case (supra), where the Supreme Court after due consideration of the relevant matters including the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Khemka's case (supra) upheld the validity of the aforesaid provision and even the validation Act has been upheld. In the said case the following contentions were raised.