Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
Section 11A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.Karamchari ... on 13 February, 2004
In the said judgment, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State
Bridge Corporation Ltd., Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Karmachari Sangh reported in
(1998) 4 SCC 268 was relied on wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
if there was a specific remedy available under a statute, Writ Petition should
not be entertained.
Section 19 in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
M/S Mentha & Allied Products Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut on 5 May, 2004
In support
of his contention, he referred to a judgment of the Karnataka High Court
reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 364 (Applied Industrial Products Private Ltd., Vs.
Collector of Central Excise) wherein, it has been held that the show cause
notice issued beyond the limitation has to be quashed on the ground of
limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. Even if
the petition is dismissed by directing the petitioner to go back to the
respondent to show cause to the notice, again the respondent has no power to
pass any order since it is barred by time. In which event, the exercise going
to be taken by the respondent will also be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the
arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
on these subjects that the show cause notices in the present case do not satisfy
any one of the ingredients of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, was also
duly considered under the law.
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
Similarly, in the case of State of H.P. and Others Vs.
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., and another reported in 2005 (6) SCC 298 also, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has held that when a person
approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy, the court
ought to ensure that he has made out a strong case or there exist good grounds
to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction, where under a statute, there was an
allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts
the taxing authorities were shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they did
not possess.