Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.24 seconds)Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Auriaya Chamber Of Commerce, Allahabad on 10 April, 1986
In this connection the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P. v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce (supra) may also be taken note of. Indubatedly in instant case the petitioner is not guilty of any laches since he has sent the claim for rebate by letter dated 14th November, 1981 well within time and mentioned therein that the formal claim will follow. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to refund on merit. Under such circumstances the respondent authorities should not have entangled themselves in the cobweb of procedures to defeat a just claim of the petitioner.
Hindustan Sugar Mills Etc vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 22 August, 1978
As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan (supra) it is expected that the Central Government will not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of a citizen for refund of the duty paid in terms of the statute by adopting the legalistic attitude but will do what fairness and justice demand.
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Sukumar Guha vs Naresh Chandra Ghosh And Anr. on 28 February, 1967
In the case of Sukumar Guha v. Naresh Chandra Ghosh defence taken by a tenant in an ejectment second appeal to the effect that notice of ejectment was not served. Notice under registered post was found to be not duly served by the court below inasmuch as it was not properly addressed. With regard to the other notice sent under certificate of posting and also by affixing a copy of the notice on the door of the suit premises both the courts below held that the said notice was effectively served. It was urged on behalf of the appellant/tenant in the Second Appeal that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act raises a presumption only for posting by registered post and non-presumption can be raised even under Section 114 of the Evidence Act in case of ordinary post or certificate of posting. This court, however, rejected such contention of the appellant/tenant and held that though presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act can only arise when the notice is sent by registered post, there may arise a presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act when notice is sent by ordinary post or under certificate of posting. It was also held by the aforesaid decision if the letter containing notice sent by post has not been returned to the sender, then it is a case where presumption operates. Whether such presumption has been rebutted depends on the acceptability of the evidence denying tender or delivery offered by the defendant. Mere denial will not lead invariably to rebuttal of presumption properly raised.
Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills ... on 16 August, 1988
In my opinion the said decision cited on behalf of the respondent cannot be of any assistance to the respondent.