Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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 βœ•
  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
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>State Level Committee's Decision Upheld in Capital Investment Incentive Scheme Challenge</h1> The High Court upheld the State Level Committee's decisions in a case challenging the denial of benefits under the Capital Investment Incentive Scheme. ... Condonation of break in production - administrative discretion of State Level Committee - benefits under Capital Investment Incentive (General) Scheme - objective application of uniform policy in incentive schemes - scope of judicial review under Article 226 - relevance of subsequent cessation of production in condonation requests - distinguishing precedent where non compliance is proceduralCondonation of break in production - benefits under Capital Investment Incentive (General) Scheme - administrative discretion of State Level Committee - Validity of the State Level Committee's decision rejecting the petitioner's request to condone the break in production and thereby denying scheme benefits - HELD THAT: - The Scheme required continuous production through the eligible period but allowed the State Level Committee to condone discontinuation where breaks were due to reasons beyond management's control. The Committee applied a uniform policy requiring (i) that the unit be in production at least at 25% when representation is made, (ii) satisfaction that the unit can remain continuously in production thereafter, and (iii) that any break during the incentive period could be compensated by subsequent production so as to meet the Scheme's object of industrial development and employment. Applying that policy to the petitioner's facts (including a 13 month break between July 2000 and August 2001 and subsequent periods of non operation) the Committee refused condonation on the ground that condoning would frustrate the Scheme's objective. The Court held that the Committee's decision was reached after due application of mind, was based on a uniformly applied policy and reasons germane to the Scheme, and was not arbitrary or perverse calling for interference under Article 226. [Paras 2, 5]The State Level Committee's refusal to condone the break and consequent denial of scheme benefits was lawful and not liable to be quashed.Relevance of subsequent cessation of production in condonation requests - objective application of uniform policy in incentive schemes - scope of judicial review under Article 226 - Whether the Committee's decision was contrary to the Division Bench's interim direction of 5.5.2006 that it should reconsider without considering the fact that, at present, the unit was not in production - HELD THAT: - The Division Bench's direction required the Committee to reconsider objectively and to take into account relevant factors prevailing at the relevant time, and stated that the Committee should not base its fresh decision merely on the fact that the unit was not in production in May 2006. The Court construed this direction as not precluding consideration of facts such as closure immediately after the eligible period where relevant to the condonation application. The Committee's decision of 28.6.2006 was not founded solely on the unit's subsequent closure; rather it applied its stated criteria and reasons. Consequently the impugned decision was not contrary to the interim direction. [Paras 2, 6]The Committee's decision did not violate the Division Bench's interim direction and therefore was not liable to be set aside on that ground.Distinguishing precedent where non compliance is procedural - strict versus liberal construction in taxing/incentive statutes - Application of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers (supra) relied upon by the petitioner - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the precedent and observed that in Mangalore Chemicals the non fulfillment was of a formal or procedural nature and amenable to liberal construction. By contrast, in the present case non compliance with the Scheme conditions (continuous production or satisfaction of the Committee's condonation criteria) was not merely formal or procedural. Hence the Supreme Court decision was inapplicable and did not aid the petitioner. [Paras 3, 7]The cited precedent was distinguishable and not applicable to the facts; it did not warrant interference with the Committee's decision.Final Conclusion: The petition is dismissed. The State Level Committee lawfully refused to condone the break in production and to grant the Scheme benefits after applying a uniform policy and relevant reasons; its decision did not breach the Court's interim direction and the relied Supreme Court precedent was inapplicable. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the State Level Committee's decision in not extending the benefits of the Capital Investment Incentive (General) Scheme 1995-2000 to the petitioner.2. Legality of the impugned orders dated 19.04.2005, 2.6/7.2005, and 28.6.2006.3. Compliance with the conditions for availing sales tax incentives under the scheme.4. Condonation of break in production by the State Level Committee.5. Legality of the recovery of sales tax from the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the State Level Committee's decision in not extending the benefits of the Capital Investment Incentive (General) Scheme 1995-2000 to the petitioner:The petitioner challenged the State Level Committee's decision, arguing it was arbitrary and illegal. The scheme required continuous production for eligibility, and the petitioner had breaks in production from July 2000 to August 2001 and from February 2004. The State Level Committee applied a uniform policy requiring units to be in production at least at 25% capacity when seeking condonation of breaks. The Committee found the petitioner did not meet these criteria, and thus, the decision to deny benefits was not arbitrary but based on uniform policy application.2. Legality of the impugned orders dated 19.04.2005, 2.6/7.2005, and 28.6.2006:The petitioner sought to quash these orders, which communicated the denial of benefits under the scheme. The orders were based on the Committee's findings that the petitioner stopped production and did not meet the scheme's conditions. The High Court upheld the Committee's decision, stating that it was based on a thorough application of the scheme's provisions and uniform policy.3. Compliance with the conditions for availing sales tax incentives under the scheme:The scheme required continuous production and other conditions such as pollution control measures, local employment, and security against deferred sales tax. The petitioner's production breaks violated these conditions. The Committee's decision to deny benefits was based on these non-compliances, which the Court found justified.4. Condonation of break in production by the State Level Committee:The petitioner argued that breaks in production were due to reasons beyond their control, such as recession in ship-breaking activities. However, the Committee required units to be in production at least at 25% capacity when applying for condonation. The petitioner did not meet this criterion, and the Court found the Committee's decision to not condone the break justified and in line with the scheme's objectives.5. Legality of the recovery of sales tax from the petitioner:The petitioner sought to prevent the recovery of sales tax, arguing they were entitled to incentives under the scheme. However, due to non-compliance with the scheme's conditions, the Committee's decision to deny benefits and proceed with tax recovery was upheld by the Court.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the State Level Committee's decisions. The Court found the Committee's actions were based on a uniform policy and thorough application of the scheme's provisions, and the petitioner's non-compliance with the conditions justified the denial of benefits and recovery of sales tax.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found