Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.49 seconds)
Indian Steel And Wire Products Ltd. vs Superintendent Of Commercial Taxes And ... on 5 October, 1956
cites
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh vs Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi on 18 July, 1949
There was a difference of opinion between the Indian High Courts as regards the interpretation of this section, but it has now been authoritatively held by the Judicial Committee in Shiba Prasad Singh v. Srish Chandra, 76 Ind App 244 : (AIR 1949 PC 297) (G) that the word "mistake" in Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act includes a mistake of law and that money paid under a mistake of law could be recovered and that section does not conflict with the provisions of Section 21 of the Indian Contract Act. At pages 253-54 (of Ind App) : (at p. 302 of AIR) Lord Reid states :
The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
On the 30th of March, 1953, the Supreme Court pronounced its Judgment in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., 1953 SCR 1069 : (AIR 1953 SC 252) (A), holding that Article 286(1) of the Constitution, read with the explanation thereto, prohibited the taxation of sales or purchases involving inter-State elements by all States except the State in which the goods are delivered for the purpose of consumption therein. The effect of this decision was the petitioner was not liable to pay sales-tax with regard to sales outside Bihar for the purpose of consumption in the other State with respect to period from the 26th of January, 1950, to 31st of March, 1950.
Section 22 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
According to the decision of the majority of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1955-6 STC 446 : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 661) (B), the bans imposed by the several clauses of Article 286 of the Constitution with regard to the taxing powers of tile States are independent and separate, and each one of the bans has to be surmpunted and overcome before the State Legislatures can impose a tax on the transaction of sale or purchase goods. These bans under Article 286 have been imposed from different standpoints; and even though the transaction of sale or purchase may overlap the different clauses of Article 286, each one of these bans is operative and has to be enforced.
M/S. Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... on 20 September, 1955
I, therefore, hold that the Government Pleader has failed to make good his submission on the point. I think the imposition of sales tax-continues to be illegal so far as inter-State transactions are covered by the explanation to Article 286(1) (a) of the Constitution. The same view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1955-6 STC 627 : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 765) (C).
1