M. M. DUTT, R. S. PATHAK, RANGANATH MISRA
Bharat Steel Tubes LTD. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
RANGANATH MISRA, J.
(1) THESE are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenge in these proceedings is to the validity of notice issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, respondent 2, under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act). Such notice is said to have been issued on 18/12/1980. The relevant periods are 1968-69 to 1974-75 and each of the writ petitions relates to one of these years. As common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions and a common set of arguments has been advanced at the Bar, we proceed to dispose of all these Writ Petition by a common judgment.
(2) PETITIONER 1, a Public Limited Company, has its factory at Ganaur within the District of Sonepat in Haryana State and petitioner 2 is its General Manager (Leeal) and duly constituted attorney. Petitioner 1 a manufacturer of electric resistance, welded steel tubes and pipes, is a dealer registered under the Haryana Act as also under the central Sales Tax Act. It filed returns for all the quarters covered within the period indicated above as prescribed by the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (he
relied on : Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
referred to : Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer
doubted : Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.