Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Assessment orders quashed due to goods not used locally under Entry Tax Act</h1> <h3>Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus The Assessing Authority, Jagatsinghpur Circle and others</h3> The court quashed the assessment orders and demand notices, ruling that the goods were not used, consumed, or sold within the local area as defined under ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the assessment orders under the Orissa Entry Tax Act (OET Act) and Orissa Entry Tax Rules (OET Rules).2. Jurisdiction of the State of Orissa to levy entry tax on goods brought to the continental shelf.3. Application of the Maritime Zones Act to the continental shelf.4. Whether the goods were used, consumed, or sold within the local area as defined under the OET Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Assessment Orders:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, was assessed for entry tax for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05, with demands raised for Rs. 1,79,62,793 and Rs. 1,02,33,947 respectively. The petitioner challenged the assessment orders on the grounds that the assessing authority rejected their claim for deduction on the value of goods brought into the state for exploration work, arguing that the goods were not used, consumed, or sold within the local area as defined under the OET Act. The court found that the assessment orders were based on the incorrect assumption that the goods were used within the local area, despite evidence suggesting they were intended for use on an offshore rig.2. Jurisdiction of the State of Orissa:The assessing authority claimed that the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Orissa extends up to 200 nautical miles, including the continental shelf, based on an analysis of Article 1 of the Constitution of India. This was used to justify the imposition of entry tax on goods brought into the state for offshore exploration. However, the court noted that the continental shelf is not automatically included in the local area without a specific notification extending the application of the OET Act to that region.3. Application of the Maritime Zones Act:The petitioner argued that under section 6(6) of the Maritime Zones Act, the Union of India has the exclusive authority to extend the application of Indian laws to the continental shelf through a notification. Since no such notification had been issued for the OET Act, the assessment orders were deemed invalid. The court agreed, stating that in the absence of a notification, the state could not impose entry tax on goods used in the continental shelf.4. Use, Consumption, or Sale within the Local Area:The court examined whether the goods were used, consumed, or sold within the local area as defined under the OET Act. The assessing authority had concluded that the goods were used within the local area based on the location of the petitioner's business and the delivery of goods at Paradeep. However, the court found that the goods were intended for use on an offshore rig, located 40 nautical miles from the coast, and not within the defined local area. The court also noted that the assessing authority's reliance on a new argument presented in the counter-affidavit-regarding a contract with M/s. Baker Hughes Singapore Pvt. Ltd.-was not substantiated in the original assessment orders.Conclusion:The court quashed the assessment orders and demand notices, ruling that the goods were not used, consumed, or sold within the local area as defined under the OET Act. The court emphasized the need for a notification under the Maritime Zones Act to extend the application of the OET Act to the continental shelf. The writ petitions were allowed, and the assessments were declared invalid.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found