Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-23-2007
Reported in : (2009)22VST569(Guj)
..... liable to be set aside. what was pleaded was that the circular dated february 19, 2001 was issued by the commissioner of sales tax for carrying out the purposes of the act and, therefore, circular dated september 2, 2005 could not have been issued with retrospective effect. in support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in ..... from paragraph 9 of the reported decision.20. in british physical lab. india ltd. v. state of karnataka and anr. (supra), notifications under section 8a of karnataka sales tax act prescribing preferential rates of concession for dealers of locally manufactured television sets and components, were issued. those notifications were quashed by the high court. thereupon, the state government sought ..... under the industrial policy 1995-2000 whereas the finance department issued resolutions dated july 19, 1996 and july 24, 1997, announcing the corresponding incentive scheme under the gujarat sales tax act, 1969. the petitioner has claimed that it received provisional premier registration certificate on february 1, 1999 whereas it was granted an ad hoc eligibility certificate on june 5, ..... tax v. vadilal dairy frozen food industries (2006) 146 stc 9 (guj); (20) saurashtra calcine bauxite and allied industries v. state of gujarat 1993 (91) stc 435; (21) pine chemicals ltd. and ors. v. assessing authority and ors. : 1993(67)elt25(sc) ; (22) state of orissa and ors. v. mangalam timber products ltd. : air2004sc297 ; (23) state of punjab v .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-18-2007
Reported in : (2007)3GLR2654; (2008)IILLJ201Guj
..... : (2000)illj23sc wherein it is held that the high court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance of section 17b of the act. he further relies on the decision of the punjab & haryana high court reported in 2002 llj 16 wherein it is held that the amount paid under section 17b is for maintenance and ..... of depositing rs. 20 lacs. the letters patent appeal filed by the respondent company against dismissal of the main petition was also dismissed on 1-12-2005.4.1. being aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed in the letters patent appeal, the respondent-company filed special leave petition before the hon' ..... by the employee. he further relied on the decision of this court in the case of kanjibhai punjabhai parmar v. state of gujarat reported in : (2005)1glr232 for the proposition that in case of gross delay in filing the requisite affidavit, the court can deprive of the workman of the benefits of ..... service. he has further submitted that even from the pleadings of the appellant during the pendency of the petition being special civil application no. 3988 of 2005, the workmen who were party to the reference were not only the employees of the respondent-company but also employees of m/s. s.r.s ..... non-maintainability. in support of his submission, he relies on the latest decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of kishorilal v. sales tax officer, district land development bank and ors. 2006 (7) scc 496, wherein it is held that the division bench of the high court wrongly dismissed .....Tag this Judgment!