Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1980]46STC41(AP)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The point arising for determination in all these cases is common and that is why we are disposing of these matters by a common judgment.2. The petitions raise interesting questions regarding the applicability of the Central Sales Tax Act as amended by Central Act 103 of 1976. By that Amendment Act of 1976, Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax. Act was amended with effect from 1st April, 1976, and by this amendment, a new sub-section, Sub-section (3), was inserted. The Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976, was brought on the statute book on 9th September, 1976 ; but the amendment was given retrospective effect from 1st April, 1976. The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was amended with effect from 1st September, 1976, by Andhra Pradesh Act 49 of 1976 and, by this amendment, items 19 and 20 were added to the Second Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Second Schedule deals with goods in respect of which only a single point sales tax is leviable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1970Mad419
1. In these related petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, XII of 1966 is challenged. W.P. No. 2634 of 1966 has been filed by D. Gobalousamy, Advocate Council and President of the Bar Association, Pondicherry and W.P. No. 3294 of 1968 by J. Gnany, President of the Court of First instance, Pondicherry, who, besides attacking the validity of the Act on general grounds, raises grounds personal to him.2. The impugned Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry, and received the assent of the President on 21st October, 1966. It extends to the whole of the Union Territory of Pondicherry and Section 1(3) of the Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Different provisions of the Act may be brought into force on different dates. The scheme of the enactment, in the main, is to substitute for the Tribunal Superieurd' Appeal, Courts of Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)BomCR309; 2010(1)SCALE450
1. Heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; also heard the Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (`BEST', hereinafter), Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel for Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Mr. Sorabjee learned senior counsel representing respondent No. 7.2. The government of Maharashtra made an amendment in regulation 9 of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 and inserted an explanation into it vide notification dated July 27, 2006 issued under Section 37(2) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (`the Act' hereinafter). On the basis of the amendment in regulation 9, the BEST entered into a development agreement dated May 18, 2007 with respondent No. 7 in respect of a piece admeasuring 27,913.93 sq. metres, being part of a much larger block of land measuring 1,54,082.40 sq. metres that had come to the BEST following acquisitions made by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR737
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner who is a practising advocate and who also claims to be a public spirited citizen, has approached this Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein, on the strength of Constitutional mandate contained in Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India, he questions the authority of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hold the posts of `Parliamentary Secretaries' and enjoy the status of Cabinet Minister and also questions respondent Nos. 5 to 7 appointed to different posts in the State administration, as to how they enjoy the status and rank of Cabinet Minister. He also prays that the orders at Annexures `P2' collectively and `P4' collectively relating to respective group of respondents be revoked and cancelled being violative of the Constitutional mandate.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recent Assembly Elections which were held in May 2007, resulted in the fractured mandate from the elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC928; 2006(2)ALT9(SC); JT2006(1)SC107; 2006(1)SCALE147; (2006)1SCC597; [2006]144STC342(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment and final order dated 8.9.2000 passed by the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the Writ Petition No. 19304 of 1996 filed by the appellants. In the aforesaid writ petition the appellants had challenged the constitutional validity of Entry 18 of the First Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') introduced by A.P.G.S.T. (Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act No. 27 of 1996) on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Appellants are inter alia engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement and have various factories in different locations in India, including a unit in the State of Andhra Pradesh for manufacturing cement. The appellants have their marketing division at Secunderabad from where sales of cement are carried on. It has its warehouses all over the State of Andhra Pradesh. Earlier the State was charging sales tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad99
1. The petitioners in each of the above writ petitions are companies or firms conducting chit funds of all classes in the State of Pondicherry and the present writ petitions are for the issue of a writ of Mandamus restraining the Union Territory of Pondicherry from enforcing the provisions of the Punditry Chit Funds Act 1966. Under the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, Pondicherry was constituted as a Union territory and de jure transfer of Pondicherry State to the Indian Union was made on 16-8-1962. The Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Pondicherry constituted under Section 18 of the Government of Union Territory Act 1963, has made the Pondicherry Chit Funds Act 1966 which received the assent of the President on 14-2-1967 and became law on 1-10-1967. The provisions of the said Act were enforced and the present writ petitions are filed for the aforesaid relief.2. All the petitions are of the same pattern and we shall take up the allegations in W. P. 1068 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(2)BomCR503
M.S. Rane, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are the original plaintiffs in the Regular Civil Suit No. 2171 of 1977 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune (hereinafter they will be referred to as the plaintiffs). The 1st respondent is the Municipal Corporation of City of Pune (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Corporation, Pune). The respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are owners of a plot of land being final plot No. 35/12 in T.P.S. No. 1 (hereinafter respondent 2 to 11 will be referred to as the plot holders and said final plot No. 35/12 as the said plot for brevity's sake).2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in their representative capacity and on behalf of the residents of Karve Road, Prabhat Road area, against the Municipal Corporation of Pune and the plot holders inter-alia claiming declaration and injunction to the effect that the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation Pune to the plot holders for the construction of Mangal Karyalaya on the said plot was illegal, ul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1985(1)SLJ411(Delhi)
Sachar, J.(1) This petition is directed against the aware dated 17-4-1980 given by the Presiding Officer. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court (and published in Gazette dated IT-5-1980) wherein it was held that the discharge of respondent No. 3 from service of the petitioner management was not justified and was illegal. Consequently the same was set aside and the respondent No. 3 workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, full back wages and other benefits.(2) The Central Government by its order dated 16-8-1974 made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-whether the action of the management in terminating the services of respondent No. 3 was justified. The background leading to this reference is that the respondent No. 3 was charge sheeted by the management by a chargesheet dated 8-12-1969. The management is stated to have held an enquiry and after the consideration of the enquiry report the respondent No. 3's services were terminated by an ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR258; (2008)220CTR(Bom)649; [2009]311ITR46(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan and A.V. Nirgude, JJ.1. Mr. Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner broadly made the following four propositions:I. Assuming the validity of the 2008 amendments and further assuming that the transaction is chargeable to tax then nevertheless it is submitted that the Show Cause Notice is without jurisdiction as both before and after 2008 amendment the Petitioner is not deemed to be an assessee in default.II. The provisions of Section 195 have no extra territorial application. In an offshore transaction involving two non residents in respect of a capital asset (i.e. share capital) and payment outside the country, even assuming that such transaction is chargeable to tax, there is no obligation to withhold tax under Section 195.III. The 2008 amendment to the extent that they purport to be retrospective are unconstitutional. Under the unamended Sections 191 and 201 the Show Cause Notice is clearly without jurisdiction.IV. In any view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT755
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Courts in India have often traversed questions relating to the principle of equality and affirmative action. This constant engagement with affirmative action policies has not only raised questions relating to their validity and reach, but also crucial questions about the beneficiaries of such policies. This petition raises one such short, yet significant question.2. The petitioner avers that she is an originally listed Delhi Scheduled Caste (hereafter 'SC') candidate and appeared for the LLB entrance examination conducted by the first respondent ('the University') on 20.06.2004 She was at No. 118 in the SC category ranking and it is stated that she could not obtain admission in the course due to inclusion of ineligible SC candidates belonging to States/ Union territories (UTs) other than Delhi. It is alleged that by virtue of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India and notifications issued under those provisions, only Delhi listed scheduled caste candid...
Tag this Judgment!