Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)
Southern Motors vs State Of Karnataka . on 18 January, 2017 cites

M/S Ifb Industries Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2012

25. This Court in M/s Addison and Co. Ltd. (supra) was chiefly seized with the issue of refund of excise duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent, a manufacturer of cutting tools, filed a refund claim which, on being eventually allowed after persuading through the different tiers, culminated in a reference before the High Court of Madras which was also answered in favour of the respondent/assessee. It was held by the High Court that the refund towards deduction of turnover discount could not be denied on the ground that there was no evidence to show who was the ultimate consumer 27 of the product and as to whether the ultimate consumer had borne the burden of duty. The word “buyer” used in Section 12B of the Act, as construed by the High Court did not refer to the ultimate consumer and was confined only to the person who bought the goods from the manufacturer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 34 - A Alam - Full Document

Hansraj Gordhandas vs H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector Of ... on 27 September, 1968

In a recent rendition in State of Jharkhand and others vs. Tata Steel Ltd. and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 147, this Court while exploring the underlying intent of a notification pertaining to the period of repayment by the respondents-assessee, which had earlier availed the benefit of deferment of payment of tax under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 did 39 exhaustively dwell on the golden rule of interpretation based on literal and plain meaning of the words/expressions used in a statute and with approval placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas vs. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and others (1969) 2 SCR 252, in which it was propounded thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 216 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Mahadeo Prasad Bais (Dead) vs Income-Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Gorakhpur ... on 12 September, 1991

In this regard, reference to Mahadeo Prasad Bais (Dead) vs. Income- Tax Officer ‘A’ Ward, Gorakhpur and another (1991) 4 SCC 560 would be absolutely seemly. In the said case, it has been held that an interpretation which will result in an anomaly or absurdity should be avoided and where literal construction creates an anomaly, absurdity and discrimination, statute should be liberally construed even slightly straining the language so as to avoid the meaningless anomaly. Emphasis has been laid on the principle that if an interpretation leads to absurdity, it is the duty of the court to avoid the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next