Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.46 seconds)Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969
Section 42 in Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Central Potteries Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 30 March, 1962
In Central Potteries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1962] 13 STC 472, the Supreme Court pointed out the distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular assumption of jurisdiction. It was held that an order passed by the authority with respect to the matter over which it had no jurisdiction is a nullity, but the order passed by the authority which has jurisdiction over the matter, but which he has assumed it otherwise than in the mode prescribed by law, is not a nullity. It was further held that even if proceedings for assessment wee taken against non-registered dealer without issue of a notice under section 10(1) that would be a mere irregularity in the assumption of jurisdiction and the orders of assessment passed in those proceedings cannot be held to be without jurisdiction.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Pyare Lal Malhotra Etc on 19 January, 1976
(i) The applicant, M/s. Bhupendra Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, which manufactures iron bars from scrap at Bhavnagar, is a dealer registered under the Act. The Sales Tax Officer (2), Division-1, Bhavnagar, passed the final order of assessment under section 41(3) of the Act in respect of the applicant on February 2, 1981 for the period from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978 raising the additional demand of Rs. 36,977.62 consisting of Rs. 27,189.48 by way of tax and Rs. 9,788.14 by way of penalty under section 45(6) of the Act. The proceedings initiated before the Sales Tax Officer in December 1979 could not be completed within a reasonable time as the case was adjourned from time to time at the instance of the applicant, and also because the applicant had requested the Sales Tax Officer to stay the assessment proceedings till the outcome of the representations made by the Indian Steel Re-rollers Association, Bhavnagar, of which the applicant was also a member, to the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat, for granting necessary reliefs to such dealers, so as to avoid double taxation in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319.
Section 69 in Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 14 December, 1973
7. Mr. Pathak heavily relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1977) 18 Guj LR 714. In the said case the trade notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it was totally null and void as it can counter to the illegal tariff item. It was contended that against such an ultra vires order no appeal was contemplated and, therefore, the petitioner was not bound to exhaust any alternative remedy. It was held that when the petitioner is to be asked to exhaust his alternative remedy provided under the Act before entertaining the writ petition it will always have to be decided whether the order is a nullity as being ex facie without jurisdiction or due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the essential principles of justice or any other ground. However, it was accepted that the word "jurisdiction" has both a narrow and a wider meaning. In the sense of the former it means the authority to embark upon an inquiry and in the sense of the latter the decision of the Tribunal may be suffering from non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. A determination by a Tribunal of a question other than the one which the statute directs it to decide would be a decision not under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, in excess of its jurisdiction. Apart from the aspect that the question of alternative remedy is not involved in the present proceedings it is clear that the sales tax authority had the initial jurisdiction to assess the amount of tax due from the registered dealer. He had also jurisdiction to pass the assessment order if the registered dealer did not communicate his objection within the prescribed period. There was no lack of initial jurisdiction to start the assessment proceedings. The failure on the part of the Sales Tax Officer to issue a draft order has been corrected by the appellate authority by setting aside his subsequent assessment order and by directing him to follow the prescribed procedure.