Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-21-1982
Reported in : [1983]52STC392(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These are cases in which penalties have been levied under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The levies of penalty are questioned on two grounds : (i) that they are unconstitutional, and (ii) that they are not valid even under the Act. The constitutional issue is raised in the writ petitions. The issue as to the propriety of the penalties is raised in the tax revision cases. We shall first deal with the tax revision cases and then proceed to deal with the writ petitions. 2. Section 22(2) of the Act enacts that if any one collects sales tax or purports to collect sales tax in contravention of section 22(1) he shall be liable for penalty up to one and a half times the amount so collected. Section 22(1) will be contravened under three different sets of circumstances : (i) where sales tax is collected by a person who is not a registered dealer at all; (ii) where even a registered dealer collects tax on transactions which are not taxable at a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1982
FERC v. Mississippi - 456 U.S. 742 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982) FERC v. Mississippi No. 80-1749 Argued January 19, 1982 Decided June 1, 1982 456 U.S. 742 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) was enacted as part of a legislative package designed to combat the nationwide energy crisis. To further this effort, Titles I and III of PURPA direct state utility regulatory commissions and nonregulated utilities to "consider" the adoption and implementation of specific "rate design" and regulatory standards, and require state commissions to follow certain notice and comment procedures when acting on proposed federal standards. Section 210 of PURPA's Title II seeks to encourage the development of cogeneration and small power facilities, and directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in consultation with state regulator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-22-1982
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas668(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1980, passed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 2530 of 1980. 2. The appeal raises some questions of considerable importance as to the constraint on banking institutions to charge interest on loans/advances/overdrafts or any other financial accommodation and the power of courts to examine the rigour of such transaction and give relief to the debtor by calling into aid the usury enactments. 3. The facts, in brief, are these : One D. S. Gowda was allotted a site No. 132/4 at Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, by the Bangalore Development Authority. He wanted to construct some residential flats in that site. He approached M/s. Corporation Bank', readily acceded to his request and gave advance and overdraft facilities. D. S. Gowda took the loan and commenced construction. The loan sectioned was perhaps found insufficient. So, he could neither finish the building nor repay...
Tag this Judgment!