R K GARG R K KARANJIA MADHU MEHTA P K SOI S S BEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1981-11-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 13,1981

R.K.GARG,R.K.KARANJIA,MADHU MEHTA,P.K.SOI,S.S.BEDI Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KERALA TEXTILE AND GARMENTS DEALERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
V.K. PRAKAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2012-6-607] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1994-12-66] [RELIED )]
SOLAPUR PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION SOCIETY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-99] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU KALYANA MANDAPAM OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. U O I [LAWS(MAD)-2001-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2001-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
AGGARWAL and MODI ENTERPRISES CINEMA PROJECT PVT LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIAPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2005-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
C NARAYANASWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1991-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
ASST COMMISSIONER OR COMMERCIAL TAXES BANGALORE VS. PINK CITY BANGALORE REP OF BY AL NAZEER PROP [LAWS(KAR)-2011-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
OLYMPIC OIL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1986-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD VS. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH UPADHYAY VS. PASCHIM PETROCHEM LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
IONIK METALLICS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
GLYPH INTERNATIONAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. NAGPUR DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT GAS BASED POWER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
REPAKULA VIDYA SAGAR VS. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
M.G. EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-172] [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA & 5 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-193] [REFERRED TO]
N S VENKATARAMANAN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1982-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
B KOTA MALLAIAH VS. COMMISSIONER AND REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(APH)-1990-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co LTD VS. Reserve Bank of India [LAWS(CAL)-1995-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
VIRAG TIWARI VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 & OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-194] [REFERRED TO]
ON QUEST MERCHANDISING INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-197] [REFERRED TO]
VANI VILAS FINANCE LIMITED VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. GOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. NATIONAL SOUTH INDIAN RIVER INTERLINKING AGRICULTURIST ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. V.V.F LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH CHANDRA TRIPATHY VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL [LAWS(SC)-1986-10-15] [RELIED ON]
UNITED RICELAND LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1995-2-53] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KAMLA PALACE [LAWS(SC)-1999-12-9] [REFERRED]
AMARJIT SINGH SIDHU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2016-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
KURIEN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1986-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. VS. HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2017-10-217] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT NARAYAN MISHRA VS. STATE [LAWS(PAT)-1986-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEW VARGHESE VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2008-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
A P DALIT MAHA SABHA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
A P DALIT MAHASABHA VS. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
V SUBRAMANIAM VS. RAJESH RAGHUVENDRA RAO [LAWS(BOM)-2000-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA NATH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1982-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH & 4 ORS VS. D M , LAKHIMPUR KHERI & 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JYOTI KHARE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-167] [REFERRED TO]
E MERCK INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-12-53] [REFERRED]
HOME COMMUNICATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1993-9-16] [REFERRED]
ABHIMANYU RATHOR VS. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-212] [REFERRED TO]
ZOHARA A SAIT VS. INDIAN AIRLINES CORPN [LAWS(KER)-1988-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
SESA STERLITE LINITED VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-179] [REFERRED TO]
SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
NAYA BANS SARV VYAPAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
ACRON PHARMACEUTICALS VS. UNION OF INDIA THRO SECRETARY AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-242] [REFERRED TO]
INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-85] [REFERRED TO]
MARATHWADA BANJARA JAGRATI SANGHATANA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1989-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
CHEMIEQUIP LIMITED VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(BOM)-1987-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
NEELKAMAL REALTORS SUBURBAN PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-327] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA M. JANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-74] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2008-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
ALLIED SHABIR & CO VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-1999-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
BISHOP JOHNSON SCHOOL AND COLLEGE VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. TUMBA SAW AND VENEER MILLS [LAWS(GAU)-2002-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
T R FREIGHT MOVERS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
PARSIN CHEMICALS VS. COMMR. OF CUS., HYDERABAD [LAWS(CE)-2002-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD VS. BARODA RAYONS CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1942] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
UDI DEPARTMENTAL STORE VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
AGARIKA SEVA TRUST VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
A RAMDAS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2001-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
D SUDHAKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWARALAL VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. NARMADA HYDROELECTIC DEVELOPMENT CORP [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNISHKUMAR TULI POPRIETOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2001-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA BOTTLED WATER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. OM TRADERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-225] [REFERRED TO]
R C TABACCO PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
INDUS TOWERS LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-287] [REFERRED TO]
NEW SWADESHI DISTILERY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1996-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
NELKADIR BONE INDUSTRIES VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2013-3-179] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL CIRCUIT CINE ASSOCN VS. STATE [LAWS(MPH)-1986-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
AJOY KUMAR BANERJEE UMED SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1984-3-1] [FOLLOWED]
KAISER BAHADUR THAPA VS. STATE [LAWS(SIK)-1984-7-3] [REFERRED]
JANHIT ABHIYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. TVL K P R KNITS [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-296] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1998-5-63] [RELIED ON]
UNION OF INDIA BHILLAI ENGINEERING CORPORATION ANUP MALLEABLES BURN STANDARD CO TEXMACO CIMMCO TITAGARH STEELS VS. HINDUSTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1993-4-60] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SACHCHIDANAND KISHORE PRASAD SINHA [LAWS(SC)-1995-1-165] [RELIED ON]
AMIT HEMENDRA JHAVERI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-181] [REFERRED TO]
NATRAJ CHHABIGRIH SIGRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1996-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
SATENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-143] [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-257] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA KAPOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-180] [REFERRED]
JAYAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
NELCO LIMITED A COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-484] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL T PARIKH - SOLE PROPREITOR OF PARIKH & PARIKH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ERNAD ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-189] [REFERRED TO]
NEW AMAL PLY WOOD VS. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-169] [REFERRED TO]
RIT FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-366] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GULATI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2003-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
PODILI SIVA MURALI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1998-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
JESSOP & CO. LTD. STAFF ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2002-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
SOLVOCHEM VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, DELHI AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-324] [REFERRED TO]
JANHIT DEGREE COLLEGE VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-328] [REFERRED TO]
JAIN BROTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2023-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
ALL U. P. STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPNIL UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT HARI SINGHANIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX CENTRAL [LAWS(SC)-1994-2-68] [RELIED ON]
I T C LIMITED VIRGINIA HOUSE CALCUTTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2004-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
PIYUSH BOKARIA VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-799] [REFERRED TO]
PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2016-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
PARISONS AGROTECH (P) LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ORS. VS. KANAK EXPORTS AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
ARUP BHUYAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-83] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH KISHORE CHAND & CO. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1996-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
YOGEN GHATANI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2020-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
SPEDRA ENGG CORPN E AND C VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1987-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
DULARI DEVI & ORS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-361] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-304] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAM & CO, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, S JAYAPRAKASH VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) MAIN AMAINDAKARAI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA BUILDERS FORUM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
K J PHILIP VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
ALL KERALA CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2002-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
SUGATHAN K. S. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1995-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
FUERST DAY LAWSON LIMITED VS. JINDAL EXPORT LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2001-5-12] [REFERRED]
FARMSON PHARMACEUTICALS GUJARAT PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2019-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
ESSAR STEEL INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-2017-7-187] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD VS. JOINT COMMNR OF INCOME TAX COIMBATORE [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
THIRUBHUVANAM SILK HANDLOOM WEAVERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1991-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIAN MUSIC COMPANIES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-281] [REFERRED TO]
TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
SAL STEEL LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(GJH)-2010-3-170] [REFERRED TO]
RADIO HOUSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
ERAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1991-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAJSHEKER R NADGOUD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA NAGAREEKA KRIYASAMITHI VS. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE [LAWS(KAR)-2000-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP CHATTOO VS. UNION TERRITORY OF JK [LAWS(J&K)-2021-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
M/S HOLYSTAR NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
PHAGUNI NILESH LAL VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-127] [REFERRED TO]
NATRAJ CHHABIGRIH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-1995-8-170] [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAXMI COTTON GINNING PRESSING AND OIL INDUSTRIES KOLHAPUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD. MUMBAI VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-250] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA DINESH VAKIL VS. BANSI S. WADHWA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
D.C.M SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD. UNIT DAURALA SUGAR WORKS, DAURALA, DISTRICT MEERUT AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-380] [REFERRED TO]
MULRAJ JAYANTILAL SHETH VS. GOVERNOR R B I BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-2003-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAI BAHADUR BISESWARLAL MOTILAL HALWASIYA TRUST VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2004-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY VENKATESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1993-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
INDER ELECTRICALS VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER SULTAN BAZAR HYDERABAD AND TWO ORS [LAWS(APH)-1988-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR SONI S/O LATE RAMJI PRASAD SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMOUNT BIO TECH INDUSTRIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
M/S NATH BROTHERS EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK TREXIM VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECY. (FINANCE) & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMBER OF TAX CONSULTANTS & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-437] [REFERRED TO]
REEPAK KANSAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA VS. TIRUMALA CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
LOTUS RESTAURANT VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2024-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
S PERIASAMY VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2000-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
S Ramamirtham VS. State of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
Wipro Limited VS. Assistant Collector [LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-158] [REFERRED TO]
S BAGAVATHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-287] [REFERRED TO]
T VENKATA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1985-3-4] [RELIED ON]
SEAWAYS SHIPPING LTD VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MADRAS CHENNAI PORT [LAWS(MAD)-1998-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAM & CO. VS. ASSISTANT COMNMISSIONER [LAWS(SC)-2016-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
TVL TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS JOINT VENTURE, VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-756] [REFERRED TO]
V P SASINDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-177] [REFERRED TO]
PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-168] [REFERRED TO]
IDL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2000-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATHA PAI VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR [LAWS(KER)-1987-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
SWISS RIBBONS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHAANTH BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-115] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLES HOLDINGS LIMITED REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, R. GURUPRASAD ORS. ETC. ETC. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CANARA BAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-187] [REFERRED TO]
KHADEEJA NARGEES VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-593] [REFERRED TO]
SARBANADA SONOWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG CO LTD VS. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENT ACTION GROUP [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
HUMLOG TRUST PATNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
TATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-7-174] [REFERRED]
ALL GUJARAT FEDERATION OF TAX CONSULTANTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
MAWANA SUGARS LTD. THRU. VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. CANE DEVELOPMENT & SUGAR IND, [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
JHIMGURI SINGH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1985-10-66] [REFERRED TO]
K B HIDES VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
KELVIN CINEMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1996-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
KANAK UDYOG INDIA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP PAUL VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
P VIJAY KUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS and CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2003-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
MEGA CABS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN JAIN VS. THE COMMISSIONER, VALUE ADDED TAX [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
M V SUBRAMANYAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2001-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
YASH PRAMESH RANA OF MUMBAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-5-136] [REFERRED TO]
SAKHI GOPAL AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2003-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
KODUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. ADDL R4 VALANCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2021-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADALE and SONS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1989-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
JSK INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-209] [REFERRED TO]
NARSI CREATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED & 1 VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & 3 [LAWS(GJH)-2017-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK STAFF UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAI DISTRICT FARMERS WELFARE AND PROTECTION ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1999-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. AMRATLAL PRAJIVANDAS [LAWS(SC)-1994-5-74] [RELIED ON]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1996-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED ARVIND MILLS LIMITED MADHUSUDAN VEGETABLE PRODUCTS CO LIMITED MODI SPINNING AND WVG MILLS CO LIMITED GOETZE INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1983-7-2] [RELIED ON]
ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER NOW UPGRADED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION (REGD.) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET TRAVELS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1995-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SANKHYA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2020-8-374] [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATOR OF SPECIFIED UNDERTAKING OF UNIT TRUST VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
TATA MOTORS LTD, JAMSHEDPUR, EAST SINGHBHUM VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND, [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. NAGALAKSHMI AND CO [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COLLEGES VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
NEDUNCHEZHIYAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-311] [REFERRED TO]
KRBL LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-253] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-575] [REFERRED TO]
NIDHI UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2014-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
DECCAN CHRONICLES HOLDINGS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
BANKING BUSINESS FACILITATORS ASSOCIATION VS. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
DHAMPUR SUGAR KASHIPUR LTD VS. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SUKHPAL SINGH BAL [LAWS(SC)-2005-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION REGD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2001-12-20] [REFERRED]
K V NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1985-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS MANUFACTURERS A P VS. A P HEALTH MEDICAL HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HYD [LAWS(APH)-2002-2-150] [REFERRED TO]
OMKAR FERTILIZERS PVT LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2012-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA, REP., BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TELANGANA SECRETARIAT VS. M/S. SRI VENKATESWARA INDUSTRIES, MAHABOBNAGAR, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR B. DAMODAR REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY JHUNJHUNWALA & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
NAVIN KUMAR RAY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS PRATAP SINGH RATHORE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2012-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
SOUMITRA BANERJEE VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(CAL)-2004-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB KUMAR RAY VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1992-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
A V S RAM MOHAN SASTRY VS. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2001-9-175] [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. PIRAMAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2000-10-77] [REFERRED]
CHHATISGARH DISTILLERIES LTD. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
CHAITALI NANDAN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
Ramabhilsh Kori VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2007-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. B A HASANABHA [LAWS(KAR)-1998-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. WORKMEN KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS FEDERATION [LAWS(KAR)-2004-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH SUNEJA VS. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT [LAWS(DLH)-1997-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-315] [REFERRED TO]
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-227] [REFERRED TO]
ALL KERALA ASSOCIATION OF CHIT FUNDS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2012-10-477] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KASARAGOD DISTRICT PARALLEL [LAWS(KER)-2013-7-169] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT COIMBATORE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
MOSER BAER KARAMCHARI UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
G. DEEPA VS. GENERAL MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2022-11-119] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE C B I VS. SASHI BALASUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
U/A 143(1) OF CONSTITUTION VS. OPINION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBALA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
NEW SWADESHI DISTILLERY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1996-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANTI MEDICAL SERVICES AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY N.PATEL VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VKC FOOTSTEPS INDIA PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
B.R.GANESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
USA AGENCIES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX A.UMAMAHESWARI VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-59] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1998-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
K R PALANISAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-159] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA HDPE/PP WOVEN FABRIC MANUFACTURERS VS. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2024-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI SINGH VS. MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-369] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KR.CHOUDHARY S/O SRI KRISHNA CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-3-275] [REFERRED TO]
G.VASUDEVAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-147] [REFERRED TO]
RANGANATHA REDDY VS. SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-1995-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD , THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER (HR) V GEETHA VS. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASHOK NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-212] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ENTERTAINMENT VS. M/S POLO AMUSEMENT PARK LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-167] [REFERRED TO]
APARICI CERAMICA VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
EUROLEX INDUSTRIES AND EXPORTS LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
B RAMA RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA DEVI CHHABIL DASS CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-241] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEED ABDUL SAEED MULLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
ITC LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT GUNTUR DIVISION GUNTUR [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-130] [REFERRED TO]
M S PRASAD VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER SPINNING MILLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-161] [REFERRED TO]
A P KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALERS FEDERATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT NARAIN VS. SESSIONS JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-180] [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHAL JAIN VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
BABU MATHEW VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(KAR)-1997-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1993-6-4] [FOLLOWED ON]
RAM DAYAL PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2002-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTICTIONERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1998-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY JHUNJHUNWALA & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
BBA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS. SENIOR JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [LAWS(CAL)-2023-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
SURAT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
CINEMAX INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2011-8-195] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGYODAY JANPARISHAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2012-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
RSPL LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK CHHAWDA VS. STATE OF M P & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-228] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. BABY [LAWS(KER)-1999-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VS. FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEES SERVICES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2020-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
SASMITA MOHANTY AND ANR. VS. ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-74] [REFERRED TO]
ITI HMT HAL BEL AND BGML VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1985-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-369] [REFERRED TO]
B BASAVALINGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1985-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX VS. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2024-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SURI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
THE JALANDHAR IRON & STEEL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT LAL MANGAL AND ORS. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1996-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SCIENCE FORUM NATIONAL TELECOM FEDERATION OF TELECOM EMPLOYEES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1996-2-89] [RELIED ON]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PALIWAL ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1996-3-84] [RELIED ON]
AFZALUNNISSA BEGUM TEJ BAHADUR DUBE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1992-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
A K ROY THAN SINGH TYAGI DR VASANTKUMAR PANDIT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1981-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2024-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
PANWAR TRADING CORPORATION VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
DROPTI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2012-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
TRANSLUMINA THERAPEUTICS LLP VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-9-169] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL IRON AND STEEL CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2006-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHCHANDRA SHAMJIBHAI RANIGA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-7-65] [REFERRED]
RAJESH GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-324] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ROSE VALLEY REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPATI CYLINDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-168] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED VS. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-377] [REFERRED TO]
GURCHARAN SINGH VS. MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-154] [REFERRED TO]
G PUSHPALATHA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-12-146] [REFERRED]
BINOY K. MATHEW VS. GODLEY DEV JOHN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-176] [REFERRED TO]
ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-279] [REFERRED TO]
HARKAISH P.BHADORIA VS. UNION OF INDIA THRO MINISTRY OF FINANCE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-137] [REFERRED TO]
AGGARWAL AND MODI ENTERPRISES CINEMA PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2003-8-41] [REFERRED]
S.S.INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-12-762] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTI CHITRA MANDIR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-146] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH SHIVRAM SAWANT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-247] [REFERRED TO]
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VS. M/S. NEELAMBAR FINVEST P.LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2009-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
KOTTAGUDEM BEER WINES VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1984-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH PARCEL SERVICE LIMITED VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-89] [REFERRED TO]
SGS INFRATECH LIMITED SGC MALL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHINI MILL KARMCHARI SANGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-152] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL CARBON AND CHEMICALS LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-199] [REFERRED TO]
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. TUMDA SAW AND VENNER MILLS [LAWS(GAU)-2002-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
COROMANDEL MINING & EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
SENTHILKUMAR R. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-187] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2012 VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND EMPLOYEES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1996-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
A.P.SOLVEX LTD. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AZIZ VS. LATE KANHAIYA LAL THROUGHT HIS L/RS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA AGENCIES VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE AS SOCIATION SUPREME COURT FOURTH CLASS EM PLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION S P JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1989-7-3] [RELIED ON]
PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LIMITED RESERVE BANK OF INDIA RESERVE BANK OF INDIA RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA :TIMEX FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED :TIMEX FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED :TIMEX FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1992-1-35] [RELIED ON]
K NAGARAJ D SHANKARAN D SUBBA RAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:CHIEF SECRETARY OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1985-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA HAJ UMRAH TOUR ORGANIZER ASSOCIATION MUMBAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
NOEL HARPER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EAST FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-1999-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE AND ORS. VS. NARINDER PATHAK AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1999-10-165] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE DURGA ROLLER FLOUR MILL PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. THE BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYARANYA CHITRA MANDIR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-1991-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
BASANAGOUDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1999-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
MESSRS BOROSIL RENEWABLES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2024-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
D SUBRAHMANYA BHAT S/O D BHEEMA BHAT VS. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(KAR)-2018-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
DLF GOLF RESORTS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-1-51] [REFERRED TO.]
K S R T C VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2009-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALASANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1997-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
ZOHARA A. SAID VS. INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-1989-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA TALKIES VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1993-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPRASAD AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
SYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT.LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT CPMPANIES LTD VS. GOVT OF A P [LAWS(SC)-2006-1-12] [REFFERED TO (PARA 20) 11.]
NIKO RESOURCES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-186] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhagwati, J. - (1.)These writ petitions raise a common question of law relating to the constitutional validity of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981 (herein- after referred to as the Ordinance) and Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The principal ground on which the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and the Act is challenged is that they are violative of the equality clause contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution. There is also one other ground on which the Ordinance is assailed as constitutionally invalid and it is that the President had no power under Article 123 of the Constitution to issue the Ordinance and the Ordinance is therefore ultra vires and void. We shall first deal with the latter ground since it can be disposed of briefly, but before we do so, it would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. It is not necessary to make any specific reference to the provisions of the Ordinance since the provisions of the Act are substantially a reproduction of the provisions of the Ordinance.
(2.)On 12th Jan., 1981, both Houses of Parliament not being in session, the President issued the Ordinance in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Article 123 of the Constitution. The Ordinance was later replaced by the Act which received the assent of the President on 27th March, 1981, but which was brought into force with retrospective effect from l2th Jan., 1981 being the date of promulgation of the Ordinance. The Act is a brief piece of legislation with only a few sections but the ascertainment of their true meaning and legal effect has given rise to considerable controversy between the parties and hence it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act in some detail. The long title of the Act describes it as an Act "to provide for certain immunities to holders of Special Bearer Bonds 1991 and for certain exemptions from direct taxes in relation to such Bonds and for matters connected therewith" and the provisions enacted in the Act are preceded by a Preamble which indicates the object and purpose of the Act in the following words: Whereas for effective economic and social planning it is necessary to canalise for productive purposes black money which has become a serious threat to the national economy; And whereas with a view to such canalisalion the Central Government has decided to issue at par certain bearer bonds to be known as the Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, of the face value of ten thousand rupees and redemption value, after ten years, of twelve thousand rupees; And whereas it is expedient to provide for certain immunities and exemptions to render it possible for persons in possession of black money to invest the same in the said Bonds:Sections 3 and 4 are extremely material since on their true interpretation depends to a large extent the determination of the question relating to the constitutional validity of the Act and they may be reproduced as follows:
3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force:-

(a) no person who has subscribed to or has otherwise acquired Special Bearer Bonds shall be required to disclose, for any purpose whatsoever, the nature and source of acquisition of such Bonds;

(b) no inquiry or investigation shall be commenced against any person under any such law on the ground that such person has subscribed to or has otherwise acquired Special Bearer Bonds; and

(c) the fact that a person has subscribed to or has otherwise acquired Special Bearer Bonds shall not be taken into account and shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding's relating to any offence or the imposition of any penalty under any such law.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to prosecution for any offence punishable under Chap. IX or Chap. XVII of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or any offence which is punishable under any other law and which is similar to an offence punishable under either of those Chapters or under that Act or for the purpose of enforcement of any civil liability.

Explanation:For the purposes of this subsection "civil liability" does not include liability by way of tax under any law for the time being in force.

4. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sec. 3 the subscription to, or acquisition of Special Bearer Bonds by any person shall not be taken into account for the purpose of any proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Income Tax Act), the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Wealthtax Act). or the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Gift-tax. Act) and, in particular no person who has subscribed to or otherwise acquired, the said Bonds shall be entitled

(a) to claim any set-off or relief in any assessment, reassessment, appeal, reference or other proceeding under the Income Tax Act or to reopen any assessment or re-assessment made under that Act on the ground that he has subscribed to or has otherwise acquired the said Bonds;

(b) to claim, in relation to any period before the date of maturity of the said Bonds, that any asset which is incredible in his net wealth for any assessment year under the Wealth-tax Act has been converted into the said Bonds, or

(c) to claim, in relation to any period before the date of maturity of the said Bonds, that any asset held by him or any sum credited in his books of account or otherwise held by him represents the consideration received by him for the transfer of the said Bonds.
We shall analyse the provisions of these two sections when we deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and that will largely decide the fate of the challenge against the constitutional validity of the Act, but in the meanwhile we may proceed to summarise the remaining provisions of the Act. Section 5 amends the Income Tax Act, 1961 by providing that the definition of "capital asset" in Section 2, Clause (14) shall not include the Special Bearer Bonds issued under the Act so that any profit arising on sale of the Special Bearer Bonds would not be liable to capital gains tax and it also eludes from the computation of the total income of the assessee premium on redemption of the Special Bearer Bonds by introducing a new sub-clause in Section 10, Clause (15). Section 5, sub-section (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is also amended by Section 6 so as to exclude the Special Bearer Bonds from the net wealth of the assessee liable to wealth-tax. Section 7, by amending Section 5, sub-section (1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 exempts gifts of Special Bearer Bonds from the incidence of gift-tax. Section 8 confers powers on the Central Government to make order removing any difficulty which may arise in giving effect to the provisions of the Act and Section 9. sub-sec. (1) repeals the Ordinance, but since the Act is brought into force with effect from the date of promulgation of the Ordinance, sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Ordinance, anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act,
(3.)Having set out the provisions of the Act - and be it noted again that the provisions of the Ordinance were substantially in the same terms as the provisions of the Act - we may now proceed to consider the challenge against the constitutional validity of the Ordinance on the ground that the President had no power to issue the Ordinance under Art. 123 of the Constitution. There were two limbs of the argument under this head of challenge; one was that since the Ordinance had the effect of amending the tax laws, it was outside the competence of the President under Article 123 and the other was that the subject-matter of the Ordinance was in the nature of a Money Bill which could be introduced only in the House of the People and passed according to the procedure provided in Articles 109 and 110 and the President had therefore no power under Article 123 to issue the Ordinance by-passing the special procedure provided in Arts. 109 and 110 for the passing of a Money Bill. There is, as we shall presently point out, no force in either of these two contentions, but we may point out straightway that both these contentions are academic, since the Act has been brought into force with effect from the date of promulgation of the Ordinance and sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides that anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act and the validity of anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance is therefore required to be judged not with reference to the Ordinance under which it was done or taken, but with reference to the Act which was, by reason of its retrospective enactment, in force right from the date of promulgation of the Ordinance and under which the thing or action was deemed to have been done or taken. It is in the circumstances wholly unnecessary to consider the constitutional validity of the Ordinance, because even if the Ordinance be unconstitutional, the validity of anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance could still be justified with reference to the provisions of the Act. This would seem to be clear on first principles as a matter of pure construction and no authority is needed in support of it, but if any were needed, it may be found in the decision of this Court in Gujarat Pottery Works v. B. P. Sood, AIR 1967 SC 964). There the question was whether the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Rules) made under Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (referred to shortly as 1948 Act) were void as being inconsistent with the provisions of the 1948 Act and if they were void, they could be said to be continued by reason of Section 29 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 1957 Act). This Court sitting in a Constitution Bench held that the 1956 Rules were not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1948 Act and were therefore valid, but proceeded to observe that even if the 1956 Rules were void as being inconsistent with the provisions of the 1948 Act, they must by reason of Section 29 of the 1957 Act be deemed to have been made under that Act and their validity and continuity must therefore be determined with reference to the provisions of the 1957 Act and not the provisions of the 1948 Act and since there was no inconsistency between the 1956 Rules and the provisions of the 1957 Act, the 1956 Rules could not be faulted as being outside the power of the Central Government. Raghubar Dayal, J. speaking on behalf of the Court articulated the reason for taking this view in the following words :
"Even if the rules were not consistent with the provisions of the 1948 Act and were, therefore, void, we do not agree that they could not have continued after the enforcement of the 1957 Act. Section 29 reads:

'All rules made or purporting to have been made under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, shall, in so far as they relate to matters for which provision is made in this Act and are not inconsistent therewith, be deemed to have been made under this Act as if this Act had been in force on the date on which such rules were made and shall continue in force unless and until they are superseded by any rules made under this Act'.

The effect of this section is that the rules which were made or purported to have been made under the 1948 Act in respect of matters for which rules could be made under the 1957 Act would be deemed to have been made under the 1957 Act as if that Act bad been in force on the date on which such rules were made and would continue in force. The Act of 1957 in a way is deemed to have been inforce when the Modification Rules were framed in 1956. The 1956 Rules would be deemed to be framed under the 1957 Act and, therefore, their validity and continuity depends on the provisions of the 1957 Act and not of the 1948 Act.

In this connection we may refer to the case reported as Abdul Majid v. P. R. Nayak, AIR 1951 Bom 440. In that case Sec. 58 of Act XXXI of 1950 repealed Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 and provided as follows:'The repeal by this Act of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (XXVII of 1949) shall not affect the previous operation thereof, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under that Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act, as it this Act were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action was taken.'

Section 58 was construed thus:

'The language used in Section 58 is both striking and significant. It does not merely provide that the orders passed under the Ordinance shall be deemed to be orders passed under the Act but it provides that the orders passed under the Ordinance shall be deemed to be orders under this Act as if this Act were in force on the day on which certain things were done or action was taken. Therefore, the object of this section is, as it were, to antedate this Act so as to bring it into force on the day on which a particular order was passed which is being challenged. In other words, the validity of an order is to be judged not with reference to the Ordinance under which it was passed, but with reference to the Act subsequently passed by parliament.

The rules have not been challenged to be ultra vires the 1957 Act in the instant case." The same process of reasoning which appealed to this Court in upholding the validity of the 1956 Rules must apply equally in the present case and the validity of anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance must be judged with reference to the provisions of the Act and not of the Ordinance. It would therefore be academic for us to consider whether the Ordinance was within the ordinance-making power of the President under Article 123 and ordinarily we would have resisted the temptation of pronouncing on this issue because it is a self-restraining rule of prudence adopted by this Court that "the Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied." But since considerable argument was advanced before us in regard to this issue we do not think it would be right on our part to refuse to express our view upon it.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.