Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)
K P Pan Products Pvt Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Lucknow on 5 March, 2024 cites

Sales Tax Officer, Banaras & Others vs Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf on 23 September, 1958

(viii) The decision of this Court in Sales Tax Officer, Benaras v. Kanhaiyalal Mukundlal Saraf [1959 S.C.R. 1350] must be held to have been wrongly decided insofar as it lays down or is understood to have laid down propositions contrary to the propositions enunciated in (i) to (vii) above. It must equally be held that the subsequent decisions of this Court following and applying the said propositions in Kanhaiyalal have also been wrongly decided to the above extent. This declaration - or the law laid down in propositions (i) to (vii) above - shall not however entitle the State to recover the taxes/duties already refunded and in respect whereof no proceedings are pending before any Authority/Tribunal or Court as on Excise Appeal No.51664 of 2014 42 this date. All pending matters shall, however, be governed by the law declared herein notwithstanding that the tax or duty has been refunded pending those proceedings, whether under the orders of an Authority, Tribunal or Court or otherwise."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 174 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Another on 10 December, 1982

77. That "the material resources of the community" are not confined to public resources but include all resources, natural and man-made, public and private owned" is repeatedly affirmed by this Court. [See Ranganatha Reddy, Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal [1983 (1) S.C.R. 1000] and State of Tamil Nadu etc. etc. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai & Ors. etc. [1984 (1) S.C.R. 725]. We are of the considered opinion that Sri Parasaran is right in saying that the philosophy and the core values of our Excise Appeal No.51664 of 2014 41 Constitution must be kept in mind while understanding and applying the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 72 of the Contract Act (containing as it does an equitable principle) - for that matter, in construing any other provision of the Constitution and the laws. Accordingly, we hold that even looked at from the constitutional angle, the right to refund of tax paid under an unconstitutional provision of law is not an absolute or an unconditional right. Similar is the position even if Article 265 can be invoked - we have held, it cannot be - for claiming refund of taxes collected by misinterpretation or misapplication of a provision of law, rules, notifications or regulation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 133 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next