Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. State Bank of India

Commissioner of Central Excise vs State Bank of India

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 11, 2008
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/492627

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

State Bank of India

Legal References

Reported In
2009[14]STR148

Excerpt

.....a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 3. even otherwise, we find under section 80 of the finance act upon establishing a reasonable cause for the said failure to deposit service tax within stipulated period, the penalty can be waived.order1. for delay in depositing service tax by the respondent-state bank of india, assi branch, bhaidaini, varanasi, a penalty of rs. 11,179/- was imposed which was reduced by the commissioner (appeals) to rs. 5,000/-, which has been upheld by the tribunal. the revenue has preferred the appeal against the order of the tribunal dated 20-12-2007. as the revenue effect is only rs. 600/- (sic) (rs. 6,000) and odd, the court is not inclined to entertain the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.2. shri s.k. mishra, learned counsel appearing for the revenue is present.3. even otherwise, we find under section 80 of the finance act upon establishing a reasonable cause for the said failure to deposit service tax within stipulated period, the penalty can be waived. this is an additional ground for not entertaining the appeal.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. For delay in depositing service tax by the respondent-State Bank of India, Assi Branch, Bhaidaini, Varanasi, a penalty of Rs. 11,179/- was imposed which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 5,000/-, which has been upheld by the Tribunal. The revenue has preferred the appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 20-12-2007. As the revenue effect is only Rs. 600/- (sic) (Rs. 6,000) and odd, the Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

2. Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue is present.

3. Even otherwise, we find under Section 80 of the Finance Act upon establishing a reasonable cause for the said failure to deposit service tax within stipulated period, the penalty can be waived. This is an additional ground for not entertaining the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial