| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 241 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Citicorp Finance India Ltd. vs State of Karnataka
[LexDoc Id : 425403]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2011 |
U.S.R. Tyres and Tubes (P) Ltd. vs CTO
[LexDoc Id : 410160]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2011 |
Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. vs CTT
Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act 2008: Tax payable from the date when it was due-Tax payable with interest-The Supreme Court held that once it had been confirmed that the tax was payable under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act 2008, the same became payable fr [LexDoc Id : 406970]
|
SC |
2011 |
Sandan Vikas India Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Ors.
Haryana General Sales Tax Act 1973: Petition seeking quashing of quashing of s.2(gg) and s.2(j) read with note 4-Sale not deemed to have taken place inside State if goods were not in State when contract entered into, Location or delivery of goods within the State not a basis for levy of tax on sales of goods, Petition allowed-In a petition seeking quashing of s.2(gg) and s.2(j) read with note 4 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act 1973 as amended, the high court held that i [LexDoc Id : 409220]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2011 |
J.K. Industries Ltd. and Anr. vs State of Assam and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 409852]
|
HC (Gauhati) |
2011 |
K.K. Hameed vs CTO and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 438196]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2011 |
T.R. Freight Movers vs State of Tripura and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 413628]
|
HC (Gauhati) |
2011 |
Pradip Paul vs State of Tripura and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 413476]
|
HC (Gauhati) |
2011 |
HLS Asia Ltd. vs State of Tripura and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 413331]
|
HC (Gauhati) |
2011 |
Haryana State Warehousing Corpn. vs Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 406649]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2011 |
Assistant CTO vs Makkad Plastic Agencies
Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994: Rectification of a mistake-Re-appreciation of evidence to come to a contrary finding not available while exercising power of rectification-The Supreme Court, considering whether, while exercising such power vested under s.37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994, the taxation board could re [LexDoc Id : 406351]
|
SC |
2011 |
P.M. Mohammed Rafeek vs State of Kerala
[LexDoc Id : 422744]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2011 |
Shiv Shankar Industries vs State of Haryana and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 440713]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2011 |
Porritts and Spencer (Asia) (P) Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 413282]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2011 |
G.S. Marketing Co. vs Archana Arora and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 406040]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Quality Water Management Systems (P) Ltd. vs State of Tamil Nadu
Interpretation of statutes: Taxing provision granting concessional and incentives for promoting growth and development-Liberal construction to be given to such provision-A provision, which was a taxing statute, granting concessional and incentives for promoting growth and development, should be construed liberally. [LexDoc Id : 414350]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2011 |
CTO vs Jalani Enterprises
Sales tax: Jaljira-Jaljira a mixture of different spices after grinding and mixing, Entry No. 184 of Notification dated 29 March 2001 applicable to Jaljira, Respondent liable to pay tax at 16 percent-The respondent was a manufacturer and seller of Jaljira. It deposited sales tax at the rate of 10 percent assuming that Jaljira was not a masala and, [LexDoc Id : 405577]
|
SC |
2011 |
Hotel Utsav (P) Ltd. vs District Collector and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 413453]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2011 |
Hiren Mahendrabhai Vaya vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 413290]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2011 |
K. Ummer vs State of Kerala
Kerala Government Sales Tax Act: Demand, penalty and interest-Suppression in purchase and sales proved with evidence, Interest on penalty not demandable from the date of original demand but for default in payment of penalty-The petitioner was found to be involved in suppression in purchase and sales. The assessment was made on estimation basis by adding three times of the [LexDoc Id : 412655]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2011 |
K.V. Chinnaiah vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors.
Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules 2005: Challenge to rule 135(2) and rule 144(1)-Rule 135(2) and rule 144(1) providing for an alternative scheme to be opted by the dealer, No scope for reading down rule 135(2) and rule 144(1)-The first respondent had cancelled the composition assessment and passed the reassessment order as per s.39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 20 [LexDoc Id : 411297]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2011 |
Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. vs State of Assam, Commissioner of Taxes and Superintendent of Taxes
[LexDoc Id : 410966]
|
HC (Gauhati) |
2011 |
State of Punjab and Anr. vs Federal Gogul Goetze India Ltd.
Classification of goods: Common parlance test to be applied for classifying a fiscal entry-Residue entry not invocable if entry covered by specified entry-The normal test to be applied for classifying a fiscal entry was a common parlance test and if the entry was covered by specified entry, the residue e [LexDoc Id : 406109]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2011 |
State of Punjab and Anr. vs Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 405314]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2011 |
K.V. Paul vs State of Kerala
[LexDoc Id : 422743]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2011 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
