Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
M/S.Hotel Aida vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2022 cites

Commissioner Of Sales Tax,Uttar ... vs The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd on 31 October, 1960

" 12. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants/petitioners is that the assessees had opted for compounding, based on the provision as it was existing on the first day of the commencement of the assessment year, ie on 01.04.2006, which was accepted by the Department As it stands so, the subsequent amendment brought about wef 01.07.2006 cannot in any manner be applied to the case of the assessees for the year 2006-07. It is further contended that Clause (b) of Section 7 operates in a different sphere, than the field governed by Clause (a) of Section 7 and as such, there cannot be any instance to compare the tax to be worked out under Section 7(a) and the quantum payable under Section 7(b), it is pointed out that, to work out the figures under Clause (b) of Section 7, accounts have to be maintained, which is totally alien to the concept of compounding as the purpose of the compounding itself is to relieve the assessee from the duty to maintain the accounts. It is contended that no machinery to work out the tax under Clause 7(b) is provided by the Legislature, which in fact has been contributed only by the Commissioner as per Ext. P2 Circular, which cannot be a substitute to the legal provision. It is also pointed out that, interpretation of a provision in a taxing statute is to be strict and there is no room for any equity principle or that the lacuna, if any, cannot be filled up either by the Executive or by the Court. If there is any doubt or confusion, the benefit has to go to the assessee, ST.Rev. No.21/2014 12 / 20 S.T.Rev. No.21 of 2014 11 submits the learned Counsel Reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales tax, U.P. vs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 1047 (paragraphs 11 and 13).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 167 - J C Shah - Full Document

Commercial Tax Officer vs M/S Hotel Prince on 16 January, 2015

Referring to the decision in Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd. (2019(2) KLT 432), it is argued that Breezeland has not interpreted Section 7(b) in the right perspective and the ratio of the said case for the very same reason is ST.Rev. No.21/2014 9 / 20 S.T.Rev. No.21 of 2014 8 inapplicable. It is argued that since the Full Bench ceased the matter, the question viz. whether for the purpose of paying tax at compounded rate as provided under sub section (b) of Section 7, the turnover conceded in the returns/accounts or tax paid whichever is the highest is examined and view stated.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1