Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.36 seconds)
Franke Faber India Ltd. vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes, Delhi & ... on 18 February, 2016 cites

M/S. Kwality Restaurant And Ice Cream ... vs The Commissioner Of Vat, Trade And Tax ... on 21 September, 2012

21. The Court further proceeded to observe that the conspectus of the DVAT Act and the AT Regulations reveal that an AT discharges judicial functions. Even if there were anomalies in the provisions, anything which tends to undermine the public confidence in the AT has to be "shunned and wherever necessary, cured". In the facts and circumstances, the Court passed an order forbearing the third Member (Technical) from participating in the ST.Appl. No. 74/2014 & connected matters W.P.(C) No. 4537/2014 & connected matters Page 20 of 27 proceedings in the appeal in question any further and also directed the appeal to be disposed of by the AT comprising two members who heard it at the first place. The decision in Kwality Restaurant & Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, VAT (supra) underscores that the legislative intent was that of continuity of the AT and not its cessation because of a vacancy in its membership.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - S R Bhat - Full Document

The United Commercial Bank Ltd vs Their Workmen(And Other Cases)Union Of ... on 9 April, 1951

28. By its very wording, Section 73(4) of the DVAT Act is different. It does not state that there can be no continuation of the hearing of the appeals by a single Member (Judicial) of the AT unless the second member is also appointed. On the contrary, it appears to indicate that whoever is remaining in the AT shall act as such, till such time the government fills up the vacancy. Consequently, the Court is of the view that the decision in The United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Workmen (supra) is not of any assistance to the Assessees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 148 - H J Kania - Full Document

Gokaraju Rangaraju Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 April, 1981

31. Even assuming that Mr. Anand lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals and petitions as the AT, by applying the de facto doctrine it could be held that the decision taken by him as a single Member of the AT would nevertheless get validated on this score. Here the rational appears to be that no litigant should suffer on account of the delays and uncertainties only because a vacancy is created in the AT. The law in this regard has been succinctly explained in the decision in Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of AP (1981) 3 SCC 132 where the Supreme Court observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 149 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next