Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
M.P. Electricity Board vs Additional Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 5 May, 1997 cites

Messrs Mela Ram & Sons vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Punjab on 21 February, 1956

The learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court given in the case of Mela Ram and Sons v. I. T. Commissioner, AIR 1956 SC 367 arising out of income tax. However, the learned Single Judge of this Court finding two conflicting decisions, has referred the aforesaid questions for answer of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 167 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Gulshan Rai Johar vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 4 August, 1987

9. Now coming to the second question where the basic controversy lies when the appeal is preferred Under Section 38 and it is not followed with the deposit of tax as Under Section 38(3)(a) or Under Section 38(3)(b) where one or more of the returns for the period to which the order appealed against relates have not been filed and tax has not been paid or where such return or returns have been filed but tax has not been paid 1/3rd of such balance or such part thereof as bears the same proportion to the total balance due as the period for which the returns have not been submitted bears to the period for which the assessment has been made not exceeding seventy-five per cent of such balance whichever is more, than in either of the situations, the appeal shall not be treated as maintainable. In case, the appeal is not maintainable then there is no question of entering into the merit of the case. As the deposit of tax as mentioned in Section 38(3)(a) and (b) has not been complied with then such an appeal becomes incompetent and when appeal becomes incompetent then there is no question of examining the same on merit. In case, the appeal is dismissed being incompetent and the revision is filed before the revisional authority then the scope of the revisional authority is limited, i.e. he is only to examine whether the order dismissing the appeal being incompetent is proper or not. The question of entering into merit will not arise if the appeal happens to be not properly constituted. If the appeal is not properly constituted then there is no question of going into merit. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulshan Rai Johar (supra) has observed :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Purshottamdas Mathuradas And Co. Pvt. ... vs The Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 17 March, 1966

In Purushottam Das Mathuradas (supra), as an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue against the order passed Under Section 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the learned Member of the Board dismissed the appeal inter alia holding that the dismissal of appeal on default of appearance of the appellant was justified and it did not require any interference in appeal and he declined to go into the merits of the case. This was a case in which an appeal was dismissed in default and it was not a case that the appeal was dismissed being incompetent, as in the present case. Therefore, this decision cannot be said directly conflicting with that decision. The case being dismissed in default of the appearance of the parties or a lawyer stand on different footings than an appeal which is incompetent.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1