Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Kamat & Co. And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Another on 27 August, 1990 cites

Indian Cement And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 12 January, 1988

In support of discrimination, Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh . In the said case, two notifications issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and one notification issued by the State of Karnataka, in exercise of powers conferred by section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act fell for consideration. In so far as the notification of Karnataka was concerned, it was directly under section 8(5) of the Act. We may extract the same :
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 82 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ... vs State Of Punjab & Anr. Etc. Etc on 22 December, 1989

15. Mr. Dattu, learned Government Pleader, however, pointed out that the observations of the Supreme Court in Indian Cement's case , was ruled in a subsequent decision to have been confined to the facts of that case and was directly in opposition to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab . Our attention was drawn to page 106 of [1990] 77 STC (paragraphs 31 and 32 as reported in the All India Reporter). Indeed in the later decision of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has recognised the right of the States to promote the regional economic growth by offering incentives under various economic policies including exemptions or incentives under the Sales Tax Act as not impeding or offending the guarantee of free inter-State trade and commerce under article 301 of the Constitution. One cannot have any quarrel with that decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 114 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Kalyani Stores vs The State Of Orissa And Others on 21 September, 1965

In the case of Kalyani Stores v. State of Orissa , notification issued under section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, fell for consideration. One of the questions which arose for consideration was whether restriction imposed under article 304 was in public interest. It was observed therein that without entering upon exhaustive categorisation of what might be deemed "required in the public interest", it might be said that restrictions which might validly be imposed under article 304(b) were those which sought to protect public health, safety, morals and property within the territory. Exercise of the power under article 304(a) could only be effective if the tax or duty imposed on goods imported from other States and the tax or duty imposed on similar goods manufactured or produced in that State were such that there was no discrimination against imported goods. As no foreign liquor was produced or manufactured in the State of Orissa, the power to legislate given by article 304 was not available and the restriction which was declared on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse by article 304 of the Constitution remained unfettered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 62 - J C Shah - Full Document
1