201604.29
0
0

Supreme Court On Article 14 & Tax Discrimination -II

It is sound law that refusal to make rationalclassification where grossly dis-similar subjects are treated by the law violates the mandate of Article 14. Refusal to classify is one thing and it bears on constitutionality, not launching on micro-classification to work out perfect justice is left to executive expediency and legislative judgment and not for…

201604.29
0
0

Noscitur Principle in Taxation

In BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-2013 (32) S.T.R. 49 (Tri. – LB), the principle of noscitur was applied to understand the meaning of the words “supplied, “provided”& “used”, in Notifctaion No.12/2003-S.T . The larger bench proceeded as below :  11.Etymologically the words supplied and provided are closely associated words. Provided also…

201604.29
0
0

Courts Cannot Sit in Appeal Against Policy Decisions

The fine demarcation between legislation and adminsitrative functions of Government has had been indispute for years . However, it has been dealt in two leading decisoins of Supreme Court of India as below: In Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India- (1992) 2 SCC 343, it was observed as under:…

201604.28
0
0

Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment

The doctrine  of unjust enrichment evolved from Roman law . This is evident from a legal maxim that “no one should be benefited at another’s expense” The Honourable Supreme Court of India In Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE & Customs – (2005) 3 SCC 738 explained the doctrine of unjust enrichment as below : “Stated simply,…

201604.27
0
0

Meaning of Expression ” Entertain” An Appeal

Predeposit to entertain is a pre requisite condition existing in several statutes while providing for entertaining of statutory appeals, like The Income-Tax Act, 1961, The Central Excise Act, 1944, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, etc. The meaning of expression  ” Entertain”  an Appeal can be understood from the following ratio as…

201604.24
0
0

Doctrine of Per Incuriam & Binding Precedent

The doctrine of per incuriam versus binding precedent has had been dealt by Supreme Court of India in following occassions :  In Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited (1994) All ER 293 the House of Lords observed that `Incuria’ literally means `carelessness’. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this…