SC held that Argument of promissory estoppel not valid in limiting erstwhile Area based exemption to upto 58% under GST
Honble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act by holding that deceased was a skilled labour under Kerala Fair Wages Act i.e. State Act and notional income have to be determined on basis of the said Act.
SC observed and held that in a tax matter when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Assessment Order by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal.
CIT Vs Calcutta Knitwears (Supreme Court of India) In taxing statutes, even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed (G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretations, 12th Ed, 2010, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur; Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Ed., Lexis Nexis, p. 863; Vepa P. Sara thi, Interpretation […]
It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied.
In present facts of the case while allowing the appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that (i) subordinate legislation has the same superior force as it supplements a mechanism/ procedure (ii) while interpreting the statutory provisions, the Court is always supposed to keep in mind the object or purpose for which the statute has been enacted
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking definition of the particular product in HSN, applying common parlance test, principal purpose test and end user test held that the product in dispute is Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) falling under heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not heat pumps.
Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the builder should also pay interest for it’s default to the buyer at the same rate (18% in this case), which is collected by him on default of the buyer as per agreement.
In present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by observing that the income of people of the similar status as of deceased have to be taken into consideration
