LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 1976. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1976. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2016

“Mediker” being a drug Starch (Revive) being not a chemical, are not liable to levy of entry tax under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 1976, (for short “the E.T. Act”), = Revive instant starch is used while washing the clothes. In common parlance it is not regarded and treated as a chemical or a bleaching powder. If the very substance or product would have a chemical composition, then only it would make the said substance a chemical within the meaning of Entry 55. Needless to say, the purpose and use are to be taken note of. Common parlance test has to be applied. If the revenue desired to establish it as a chemical, it was obligatory on its part to adduce the evidence. As is manifest, no evidence has been brought on record by the revenue that it is a chemical. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that it is not a chemical.

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...
Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Section 40(3)(jj)(a) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Challenged as unconstitutional and have also challenged the action on the part of the Municipal Corporations (Ahmedabad and Surat) for declaring the intention to frame town planning schemes by issuing notifications - High court partly allowed and held that section would be operative for the land other than the land covered by Section 20(2) of the Act 1976, though upheld the validity of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976 - Apex court held that as the authority is only dealing with the issues at a draft stage and the applicants have ample opportunity to file their objections and are entitled to personal hearing as required under Rule 26 clause (4), the matter can be adjudicated before the statutory authority. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the apprehensions raised by the applicants at this stage are pre-mature. More so, there is no reason to believe that the authorities would act arbitrarily and would not take into consideration the grievance raised by the applicants. In view of the above, Civil Appeal Nos.1542-44 of 2001, 1545-50 of 2001 and 1551-56 of 2001 are allowed. The judgment impugned therein are set aside to the extent hereinabove.= Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. …Appellants Versus Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal & Ors. …Respondent = 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41534

›
Section  40(3)(jj)(a)  of  the  Gujarat  Town  Planning  and  Urban  Development  Act,   1976 - Challenged as unconstitutional  and  have ...