Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)Section 6 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
M/S.Shriram Vinyl & Chemical ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 20 March, 2001
7. Mr. Sibal, then, contended that the language of Entry No. 10 is clear and plain and has to be construed reasonably and rationally and not in a manner which deprives the benefit thereof. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shriam Vinyl and Chemical Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, J.T. 2001(4) Supreme Court 89. In this case, while interpreting an entry in the Notification providing for concessional rate of duty, the expression 'assembly' was sought to be equated with the expression 'manufacture'. The Supreme Court dis-approved of this approach by observing that the language of the Notification being clear and plain, it had to be reasonably construed in a rational manner and not in a manner which deprives the benefit thereof. It was observed that if the construction as placed by the Tribunal was accepted, the expression 'assembly' in the Notification would be rendered redundant. The counsel pointed out that in the case in hand also, if the interpretation as placed by the respondents were to be accepted, it would render the word 'based' in the entry redundant. He referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Agro Tech. Ltd., etc v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors.., J.T. 2001(6) Supreme Court 74, where the Supreme Court while interpreting entry 24-B of the 1st Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, held that the expression 'mention' could not be equated with the expression that has suffered tax under Entry 24.
State Of Punjab vs M/S. Jullunder Vegetables Syndicate on 1 November, 1965
8. Mr. Sibal lastly contended that a Statute has to be interpreted as it stands and in case of doubt, it has be to interpreted in a manner favourable to the tax payer. The Court cannot proceed to make good deficiencies in a provision, if any. For this purpose,
he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate, A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 1295.
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992
He also placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Tempo Limited, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-Ill, Bombay, 1992(3) S.C.C. 78, wherein it has been held that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentive for promoting economic growth and development should be construed liberally. Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. He pointed out that in the present case also, the provision for exemption of Sales Tax under Section 13-B of the Act has been incorporated in order to promote industrial growth in the State of Haryana and, therefore, the restriction placed in the negative list has to be construed strictly and in a manner which promotes the objective and purpose of the provision for exemption.
Province Of Bombay vs Hormusji Manekji on 12 July, 1947
10. Mr. Jain, then contended that when the exception talks about "non molasses alcohol industries" it must essentially refer to only such of those industries as fall within the scope of the main clause i.e. "Ethanol (Ethyl Alcohol) based industries". On this basis, the exception could only be interpreted to exclude from the scope of the main clause industries which are based on alcohol produced from non-molasses. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Privy Council in Government of the Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji, A.I.R. 1947 Privy Council 200. In para 24 of this report, it has been observed that "it is a familar principle of statutory construction that where you find in the same section express exceptions from the operative part of the section, it may be assumed, unless it otherwise appears from the language employed, that these exceptions were necessary, as otherwise the subject matter of the exceptions would have come within the operative provisions of the Section."
Dwarka Prasad vs Dwarka Das Saraf on 11 August, 1975
In Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1758, it has been held that if, on a fair construction, the principal provision is clear, a proviso cannot expand or limit it. A proviso must be limited to the subject matter of the enact-
Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge & Ors on 26 September, 1988
14. Similarly, in Madhu Gopal v. VI Additional District Judge and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 155, it has been held that it is a well settled principle of construction that unless clearly indicated, a proviso would not take away substantive rights given by the Section or the sub-section.
Shri Kihota Hollohon vs Mr. Zachilhu And Others on 18 February, 1992
In Shri Kihota Hollohon v. Mr. Zachilhu and Ors.,12 A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 412, it has been held that it is settled rule of statutory construction that "the proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment, and its effect is confined to that case."
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 August, 1989
21. Mr. Surya Kant cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, 1991(82) S..T.C. 225 to contend that to understand the language in a notification, one has to keep in mind the object and purpose of exemption. He further contended that as already pointed out, the object and purpose of including Entry No. 10 in the negative list was borne out from the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee. It is evident that one of the major considerations for inclusion of certain industries in the negative list was short supply of raw material. He therefore, explained that since molasses was in short supply, its consumption was sought to be discouraged and this intendment has to be kept in view while interpreting the aforesaid entry. Thus, Entry No. 10 of the negative list was meant to cover industries which manufactured Alcohol from molasses as also industries which are based on such alcohol.