SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Bom) 243

N.J.PANDYA, RANJANA DESAI, V.C.DAGA
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for the State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
G. and J. Concerns and others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, A.C.J.:---All the three references are heard together and decided by common judgement as they involve same question of law as to whether the hotel can be considered to be an industrial undertaking within the meaning of notification dated 3rd November 1972 issued under section 9 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Other facts being admitted, we straightly go to this question.

2.The word industrial undertaking is in the said notification. In respect of that exemption is granted as also the small scale industrial undertaking which are covered by it. The explanation in the notification specifies that unless a certificate of small scale industrial undertaking is produced, mere claim of stamp duty exemption will not be accepted.

3.In each case, most of the finance assistance is obtained by the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation. The said Corporation is one of the financial institutions whose transaction mortgaged by way of financial assistance are exempted by the said notification.

4.Ordinarily, therefore, one has to turn to the statute which brings about the said corporation in to existence i.e. the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In it, there is definition o











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top