Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)
M/S.A.R.S.Metals (P) Limited vs The Additional Commissioner (Revision ... on 26 November, 2019
cites
E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 8 October, 2001
14. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of E.I.D
Parry (India) Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai
(and another appeal) ((2005) 141 STC 12) considered the circumstances
under which interest under Section 24(3) can be imposed stating that it is
only when an assessment, either provisional or final, had been made and
notice of demand issued, that the levy of interest would stand triggered.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
Sri Krishna Smelters Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner (Ct) on 6 September, 2017
9. The petitioner also relies on a decision of a learned single Judge in
the case of Sri Krishna Smelters Ltd. V. The Joint Commissioner and another
(W.P.Nos.23956 to 23958 of 2017 dated 06.09.2017), where also, the
question considered was whether the demand of interest should run from
date of repayment of loan or the date of returns filed by the petitioner.
Indo Shell Mould Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Fac) on 17 September, 2019
10. The petitioner also relies on a decision rendered by me in the case
of Indo Shell Mould Ltd. V. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) and another
(W.P.No.31819 of 2006 dated 17.09.2019), wherein the facts are
distinguishable. Though the petitioner in that case had availed of deferral
only for five months out of the entire period of deferral, interest was sought
to be levied under Section 24(3). However, the scheme of deferral had not
been cancelled in that petitioners' case. Thus, on the factual premise that
the scheme continued, though the petitioner had not availed the same for a
substantial portion of the scheme, I had set aside the levy of interest noting
6/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.25368 of 2011
at paragraph 4 that it was undisputed that the petitioner was entitled to and
covered by the deferral scheme though it had not availed the benefit of the
same for a substantial portion of the scheme.
Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd vs Commercial Tax Officer & Ors on 8 February, 2005
12. The case of the petitioner in that case was that the deferment
granted was without limit and a challenge was laid to a Notification issued by
the Sales Tax Department, retrospectively imposing a ceiling on the amount
of sales tax that might be deferred. The High Court rejected the prayer
7/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.25368 of 2011
holding that since, even originally the deferment granted was not unlimited,
the subsequent Notification only clarified this position. The stand of the
assessee was rejected confirming the ceiling imposed on the tax deferred.
1