Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)R. S. Joshi, S.T.O. Gujarat Etc. Etc vs Ajit Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr. Etc. ... on 31 August, 1977
In R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat v. Ajit Mills Limited and Anr.. (1977) 40 STC 497, on which the Auditor General had placed reliance to find fault was held to be distinguishable. It was held that the said case related to forfeiture and essence of judgment was principles of mens rea have no application to the case of excess amount collected within the purview of Bombay Sales-tax Act. On facts, it was concluded that there was no Criminal intention, the conduct did not reflect contumacy and therefore, penal provisions of Section 9-B (,3) were not applicable. The Commissioner exercised powers Under Section 23 of the Act read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales-tax Rules, 1947 (in short, the "Rules') and held that the order of the Sales-tax Officer dropping the proceeding was not legal. it was held that collection made by the petitioner is excess of what had been ultimately found payable amounted to clear case of excessive collection and therefore, action of the Sales tax Officer in dropping the proceeding was not legal. The legality and propriety of the Commissioner's order is impugned.
Mahabir Kishore & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 1989
As observed by the apex Court in Mahabir Kishore and Ors., v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 313 the relatively modern principle of restitution is of the nature of quasi-contract. The principle of unjust enrichment requirest first, that the defendant has been "enriched" by the receipt of a "benefit"; secondly, that this enrichment is "at the expense of the plaintiff"; and thirdly, that the retention of the enrichment be unjust. This justifies restitution. Enrichment may take the form of direct advantage to the recipient's wealth such as by the receipt of money or indirect one for instance where inevitable expense has been saved.
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1