Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

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>Court upholds tax directions as reasonable and necessary to prevent evasion, dismisses petitions, cites Full Bench decision.</h1> <h3>Venee Corporation Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes</h3> The court upheld the directions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as within jurisdiction, reasonable, and necessary to prevent tax evasion ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to issue directions for tax collection.2. Detention of goods at checkposts for non-payment of advance tax.3. Reasonableness and constitutionality of the directions issued.4. Conflict between judicial precedents on the issue.5. Alleged discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to Issue Directions for Tax Collection:The petitioners contended that the letter (Ext. P1) issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes lacked jurisdiction. However, the court referred to Section 3(1A) of the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963, which states that the Commissioner (Board of Revenue) has the authority to issue orders, instructions, and directions for the proper administration of the Act. The court concluded that the Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction in issuing the directions for proper tax collection, supported by Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. Detention of Goods at Checkposts for Non-Payment of Advance Tax:Under Section 29(2) of the K.G.S.T. Act, goods accompanied by a bill of sale or delivery note can be transported within the state. The court noted that the detention at checkposts is justified only if the goods are not covered by proper and genuine documents. The court highlighted instances of tax evasion and misuse of sale bills by dealers, which justified the need for stringent measures to ensure proper tax collection. The court upheld the directions issued by the Commissioner as reasonable and necessary to prevent tax evasion.3. Reasonableness and Constitutionality of the Directions Issued:The petitioners argued that the directions were unreasonable and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court, however, found that the directions were issued to ensure proper tax collection and prevent evasion. The court emphasized that the directions were modified to address the concerns of the dealers, making them reasonable and not arbitrary. The court also referred to the decision in M.C. Johnson, Reshma Timbers, which supported the reasonableness of the directions in the interest of revenue.4. Conflict Between Judicial Precedents on the Issue:The court acknowledged a conflict between the decisions in M.C. Johnson, Reshma Timbers, and Rijo Jacob. In M.C. Johnson, Reshma Timbers, the court upheld the directions as reasonable and within the powers of the Commissioner. In Rijo Jacob, the court held that no general direction is permissible under Section 29A of the Act. The court resolved this conflict by referring to the Full Bench decision in M.R.F. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner, which upheld the legislative intent and competency in issuing such directions for effective tax collection.5. Alleged Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:The petitioners argued that the directions discriminated against certain dealers and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court dismissed this contention, stating that fiscal statutes allow for classification, and unless discrimination within a class is shown, the classification is not open to challenge. The court found the classification reasonable and well-founded, aimed at preventing tax evasion and ensuring proper tax collection.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Original Petitions, upholding the directions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as within jurisdiction, reasonable, and necessary to prevent tax evasion and ensure proper tax collection. The court also resolved the conflict between judicial precedents by referring to the Full Bench decision in M.R.F. Ltd., which supported the legislative intent and competency in issuing such directions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found