Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Limitation Act inapplicable to Sales Tax Act proceedings; Dealers must directly approach assessing authority for certificates</h1> <h3>AVU. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad and another (and other cases)</h3> AVU. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad and another (and other cases) - [2005] 142 STC 52 (AP) Issues Involved:1. Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.2. Whether the dealers are entitled to file certificates/forms 'C', 'F', and 'H' after the completion of the assessment.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act:The petitioners, registered dealers under the APGST Act and CST Act, filed writ petitions challenging the first appellate authority's refusal to entertain appeals on the ground of limitation. The appeals were dismissed as they were filed beyond the permissible thirty-day extension period, which the appellate authority could not condone due to the amendment by Act 8 of 1997.The petitioners argued that the amendment, which restricted the appellate authority's discretion to condone delays, was unjust. They contended that the Limitation Act, 1963, should apply by virtue of section 29(2) of the said Act, allowing the appellate authority to condone delays without restriction. They cited several Supreme Court judgments to support their argument that the Limitation Act should apply unless explicitly excluded.The Government Pleader opposed this, stating that the amendment aimed to streamline and simplify the appeal process and reduce discretionary powers to prevent prolonged litigation and revenue delays. The constitutionality of the amendment had already been upheld, and applying the Limitation Act would nullify the legislative intent.The court examined section 19 of the APGST Act, both before and after the amendment, noting that the amendment intentionally restricted the appellate authority's power to condone delays. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including those in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, and Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, among others. These cases emphasized that even if a special law does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, the scheme and intent of the special law could imply such exclusion.The court concluded that applying the Limitation Act would undermine the legislative intent of the amendment, which aimed to curtail discretionary powers and ensure timely revenue collection. Hence, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to the proceedings under the APGST Act.2. Filing of Certificates/Forms 'C', 'F', and 'H' Post-Assessment:The petitioners alternatively sought a direction to allow the filing of certificates/forms 'C', 'F', and 'H' after the completion of the assessment. They relied on a Madras High Court decision in Vispro Foundry Engineers Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, where the court allowed reopening of assessments to accept such forms.The court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company, which held that appellate authorities could accept 'C' forms during appeals as they are a continuation of the original assessment proceedings. However, the court noted that this decision did not address whether assessing authorities could reopen assessments at the dealers' request.The court observed that even if such power exists, it is for the dealers to approach the assessing authority directly, not through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the court found no merit in granting the alternative relief sought by the petitioners.Conclusion:The writ petitions were dismissed, with the court holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to the APGST Act proceedings and that the dealers must approach the assessing authority directly for filing certificates/forms post-assessment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found