Kolkata Court April 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Magna Dealers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.226 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGNA DEALERS PRIVATE LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT).ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 1st April, 2014. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Sudhir Meheta, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.Pradip Kr. Roy, Sr.Adv.Mr.K.K. Maity, Adv.Mr.K.Dey, Adv.For the DRI. The Court : The petitioner have assailed the showcause notice on the ground that the same is issued under section 28 read assessment with is section made 124 under of the section Customs 18 of Act the before said final Act. The petitioner relies upon a judgement of this Court in the case of A.S.Syndicate (Warehousing) P. LTD.versus Commissioner of Customs (Port) reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T.469 (Cal.) to the proposition that the show cause notice issued under section 28 or under section 124 cannot withstand unless the final assessment is made. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Comm...
Binani Industires Ltd. and anr Vs. Chief Comm. of Income Tax, Kolkatai ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.1950 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BINANI INDUSTIRES LTD.& ANR Versus CHIEF COMM. OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 1st April, 2014. Appearance : Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Ms.Anupa Banerjee, Adv.Mr.C.M. Ghorawat, Adv.for the petitioneRs.MRS.Smita Das Dey, Adv.for the respondent. The Court : The writ petitioner had filed an Income-tax return on 31st July, 1991 for the assessment year 1990-91. However, it had paid Incometax of the aggregate sum of Rs.3,03,10,883/- by 3rd May, 1990. It may be noted here that the department assessed the Income-tax payable by the petitioners at Rs.2,80,17,905/-. The revenue charged interest under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act on the writ petitioner for delayed filing of its return for seven months commencing from 1st January, 1991 upto 31st July, 1991. The writ petitioner had challenged such charge of interest by way of a writ petition which i...
Ashok Kumar Roy, Jalpaiguri Vs. Branch Manager, Jalpaiguri
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri in Case No. 19/2011, by which the case has been dismissed on contest against the OP without cost, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. The case of the Complainant is that he invested some money in the Unit Linked Pension Policy Scheme of the OP and paid Rs.2,50,000/- on 03.01.2008, being Policy No. 11502119. As he suffered financial crunch, he requested the OP by a letter dated 18.03.2009 to reduce the half yearly payment and accordingly the OP reduced the same to Rs.65,000/- to be paid half yearly, and accordingly he paid Rs.1,30,000/- being the half yearly investment for the month of July, 2008 and January, 2009. Subsequently, the OP again reduced the half yearly investment to Rs.35,000/-, which was paid for the second half of 2009 on 25.11.2009. Thereafter, he paid the reduced half yearly investment of Rs.10,000/- each for the two ...
M/S. Metacon Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 23.06.2007. 2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006, communicated to them on 04.12.2006, they had preferred an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.12.2006. The ld. Advocate submits that instead of deciding the appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has communicated to them, vide letter dated 13.07.2007, that the appeal filed against the said Order-in-Original No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006, was barred by limitation, as the same had not been filed within the time-limit of sixty days and the extended period of thirty days, as prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The ld. Advocate submits that the Order No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006 had been received by them on 04.12.2006, and the appeal had been filed on ...