Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)
Alok Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2021 cites

Salonah Tea Company Ltd vs Superintendent Of Taxes Nowgong & Ors. ... on 18 December, 1987

8. The Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. and Others v. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and Others - (1988) 1 SCC 401, held that normally in a case where tax or money has been realized without the authority of law, there is in such cases concomitant duty to refund the realization as a corollary of the constitutional inhibition that should be respected unless it causes injustice or loss in any specific case or violates any specific provision of law. If the tax was collected without authority of law, the respondents had no authority to retain the money and were liable to refund the same, held the Supreme Court. It held that in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has power to direct refund, Signature SAN Not Verified Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2021.01.15 16:24:59 IST WP-1874-2019 [8] however, courts have made a distinction between those cases where a claimant approaches a High Court seeking relief of obtaining refund only and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down of the order of assessment etc. A petition solely praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money allegedly collected by the State of tax is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 122 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 October, 2003

In Godavari Sugar Mills Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 439, also it was held by the Supreme Court that there is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 26 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Verigamto Naveen vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 18 September, 2001

In Verigamto Naveen vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 344, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of the Government to enter into business with anybody it likes is subject to the condition of reasonableness and fair play as well as public interest. It was further held that after entering into a contract, in cancelling the contract, which is subject to terms of the statutory provisions, it cannot be said that the matter falls purely in a contractual field and therefore, it cannot be held that since the matter arises purely on contract, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 127 - Full Document

State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005

In State of H.P. And Others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited and Another - AIR 2005 SC 3936, the Supreme Court while considering the objection of alternative remedy to filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that despite existence of alternative remedy, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. But normally the High Court should not interfere if there is efficacious alternative remedy is available. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case that there exists good ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. Following observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced herein for the facility of reference :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 583 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next