Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.32 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 68 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Commr.Of Income Tax-Xvii,New Delhi vs Punjab Stainless Steel Industries on 5 May, 2014
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi6,
the Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT-VII,
New Delhi v. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (supra) held that the
"Turnover" not having been defined in Notification No. 25/2012-ST or in
Finance Act, 1994, hence in order to interpret the meaning, common
parlance meaning as understood by those dealing in accounts and
taxation would have to be taken.
The Companies Act, 2013
Section 65 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
6.3 In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, it is settled that the
term turnover is not restricted to mean turnover of only taxable services.
From the facts available, it is noted that during the preceding financial
years, the turnover, inclusive of nursery sales was Rs.11,51,478/- for
2012-13 and Rs.10,45,004/- for 2013-14. Thus, having crossed the
threshold of Rs.10 lakhs, the appellant is not eligible for the threshold
exemption as per Notification No.33/2022 dated 20.06.2012.
Consequently, the appellant does not qualify for the benefit of exemption
provided under Notification No.25/2012 dated 26.06.2012. Therefore,
the refund has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order.
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab vs Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd.And ... on 15 November, 1963
6. Coming to the fulfilment of second condition, it is observed
that term "turnover" has not been defined in either Finance Act,
1994 or in Central Excise Act, 1944. Though Commissioner
(Appeals) has relied upon the definition of turnover as given in
Section 2(91) of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the said Act is
not pari materia to any of the above-mentioned Acts. The
contentions of the appellant to that extent is acceptable that
different statutes seek to achieve different objectives, due
interpretation of expressions used in one statute with reference
to other use in another statutes cannot be applied for, as has
been settled by Supreme Court in the case State of Punjab v.
Okara Grave Buyers - AIR 1964 S.C. 669. But it is equally the
settled law that the terms which have not been defined in a
statute, the common and the general meaning thereof shall be
attributed.