Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3018 OF2017INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.15875 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.15893 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.15896 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.15899 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.15900 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.15926 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.16192 OF2017JUDGMENT1R.F. Nariman, J.1. The present appeal and special leave petitions arise out of demands made from the Appellant for payment of Entry Tax under the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Entry Tax Act).2. The Appellant has its marketing division in the State of Bihar with branches, inter alia, at Barauni and Patna. It is from these branches that sales of petroleum products are effected. The Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker322
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 22596 of 1997 is the appellant herein. He filed the Original Petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exts. P8 and P9 demand notice, and for a mandamus directing the Municipality to lake up Ext. P4 appeal for consideration and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity to the appellant to be heard. According to the appellant, he is maintaining an auditorium for the service of the public on a non-profit basis for conducting marriages and receptions connected thereto. It is submitted that only a few marriages are conducted in the said auditorium in a year and that the same is not let out for any other purpose. Therefore the appellant submitted that the enhancement in the tax now made is not warranted. The revision petition preferred by the appellant was disposed of by Ext. P3 order determining the half yearly tax due at Rs. 7,403/- which was directed to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 15TH MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 1669 of 2013 (G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSCO GOLD CORPORATION PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, JOSCO COMPLEX, M.C. ROAD, KOTTAYAM 001. BY SRI.RAJU RAMACHANDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-I , (KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM 001. 3. THE SALES TAX COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF SALES TAX, TRIVANDRUM 001. 4. THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 001. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013 13TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 30424 of 2012 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER : - ------------------------- ROCK ROSE TOURIST HOME PVT LTD, N.H BYE PASS, OPPOSITE MEDICAL CENTRE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 2 (REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. T.J.JOSEPH) BY ADVS.SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS : - ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2nd CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY AT PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 68 025.2. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC BUILDING OFFICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69 001.3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, PIN 68.030.4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 69.001. BY Sr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]244ITR374(Mad)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 273A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 By its petition under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the asses-see has soug'ht for waiver of interest and penalties in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84. 2. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that there was an action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, consequent to which the assessee had filed returns of income admitting' unaccounted incomes arising to it. Since the assessments for the abovesaid assessment years were all completed after action under Section 132, I see no reason to entertain the present petition filed under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In the circumstances, the petitions are rejected. (Sd.) N. Rangachary,Commissioner of Income-taxT. N.-V, Madras-34.'Hence the above writ petition.15. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the impugned proceedings dated January 28, 1988, on the ground that the returns of income admitting the unaccounted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C J. 1. These Writ Appeals raise an important issue pertaining to the extent of power which can be exercised by the District Disaster Management Authority (for short, the DDMA ) in reference to a disaster management, i.e., Whether in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Act ), the District Management Authority can direct for demolition of the construction belonging to a private individual standing on an underground canal so as to carry out renovation and repair works of the said canal which became imminent due to the fact that the structure of the canal has outlived its life and would have led to a disaster within the meaning of the 2005 Act? 2. Writ Appeal Nos.2745, 2767 and 2768 of 2015 have been filed against the common judgment dated 23.09.2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions filed by respondent No.1 in the above appeals. Writ Appeal No.57 of 2016 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2001Ker68
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. This Original petition Is filed to quash Exts. P4 and P6 also for writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to give electricity connection to the petitioner's auditorium as approved by the 4th respondent in Exts. PI and PI (a) approval. Petitioner has constructed an air conditioned auditorium at Oachira by name 'Regency Hall'. Petitioner has decided to have a generating unit having capacity of 200 KVA for working the air conditioning unit and he requires electricity from the Electricity Board only for the purpose of lights and fans. Petitioner submitted the said scheme for approval. The scheme showed that there is separate line from the gerierator to the air conditioner without having any connection to the line connected to the supply of electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board. Ext. PI is the proceedings of the Electricity Inspector, Kollam giving sanction under Section 30 of the Indian Electricity Act and rules 47A and 135 of the Indian Electric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE29H DAY OF MARCH2016 BEFORE: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.22483-22494 OF2015(T-RES) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION Nos.38509 AND3898738997 OF2015(T-RES) WRIT PETITITION Nos.38510 AND3897338983 OF2015(T-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.23533-23568 OF2015(T-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.56067-56074 OF2015(T-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.57835-57843 OF2015(T-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.2925 AND42184228 OF2016(T-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.3104-3115 OF2016(T-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.6061-6072 OF2016(T-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.11249-11272 OF2016(T-RES) IN W.P.Nos.22483-22494 OF2015BETWEEN: Sonal Apparel Private Limited, No.12-B, 6th Main, 2 PETITIONER3d Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore 560 058. Represented herein by its Director/General Manager, Mr. Mohandas. (By Shri K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) AND:1. 2. The State of Karnataka, Represented herein by the Principal Secretary Finance Department, Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2013 9TH SRAVANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 16354 of 2013 (T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. V.K.BRAHMADAS, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.VENNAGOTTU KARUPPAN, MANAGING PARTNER, AISWARYA FINANCE, P.O.VENKITANGU, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.2. K.A.SOHAN DAS, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.AIYYAPPAKUTTY, KAZHUNGIL HOUSE P.O.VENKITANGU, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-678001.2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, PIN-680507.3. V.K.DHARMADAS, S/O.VENNAGOTTU KARUPPAN, PARTNER AISWARYA FINANCE, P.O.VENKITANGU, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHAITRAM, ARIMPOOR P.O. THRISSUR 120. 4. V.K.SIVADAS, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.KARUPPAN, VENNENGOTTE HOUSE, VENKIDANDU P.O., THRIS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT West Bengal
Reported in : (2000)118STC515Tribunal
1. This application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, enacted under Article 423-B of the Constitution of India, is a substitute for one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and it is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to the exclusion of that of the High Court. The questions for decision are whether the provisions of the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter mentioned as "Luxury Tax Act") are valid and constitutional in so far as they levy luxury tax on cigarettes, being: tobacco products. The challenge to constitutional validity is based on, inter alia, alleged want of legislative competence and contravention of Article 401 of the Constitution and Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and inconsistency with the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957.2. For the sake of brevity, applicant No. 1 will be referred to as "company". It is actually a company under the Companies Act, 1956, which carries on the business of distribut...
Tag this Judgment!