advocates in Supreme Court of India, http://supremecourtindia.in/the-court-held-that-supreme-court-precedent/. The relevant provisions for the taxation of emoluments or earnings were and are drafted in deliberately wide terms to bring within the tax charge money paid as a reward for an employee’s work. The contention was controverted by the respondents. 101 of 1967 raised the contention that it was a new factory and that the Government of Andhra Pradesh should have exempted it from payment of tax under s. 16(4) of the Constitution a reservation of a reasonable percentage of posts for members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was within the competence of the State, the method evolved by the Government must be such as to strike a reasonable balance between the claims of the backward classes and claims of other employees, in order to effectuate the guarantee contained in Art.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. ” But the majority judgment of this Court in that case took the view that Art. For example, the emphasis resulting from the extension of the definition lawyers in Supreme Court of India its latter part to include services of employees, received little recognition best lawyers in Supreme Court of India the later cases. These circumstances do not establish any normative or basic defect in the arrangements which Mr Hunt made. The words must mean something definite, but some of the tests were found unsatisfactory to cover new cases as the creation of new tests clearly shows.
Having regard to the purpose of the relevant provisions, I consider the sums paid to the trustee of the Principal Trust for a footballer constituted the footballer’s emoluments or earnings. Thirdly, notwithstanding the absence of a strict causal connection between the payments by the Lead Claimants and the enrichment of the Commissioners, the nexus created by the VAT system between the consumer and the Commissioners could, advocates in Supreme Court India his view, hardly be closer or stronger as a matter of commercial reality.
That is in my opinion the crux of this appeal. They had indirect consequences, evidently overlooked by Mr Hunt or his advisers, for Swynson, for Swynson’s separate relationship with HMT, and so indirectly for both Swynson and Mr Hunt: see, in particular, paras 62, 65 and 68 above. The scheme was designed to give each footballer access without delay to the money paid into the Principal Trust, if he so wished, and to provide that the money, if then extant, would ultimately pass to the member or members of his family whom he nominated.
In his view, cases concerned with subrogation showed that the “at the expense of” requirement could be satisfied by reference to “the underlying commercial reality of a transaction” (para 72). Too much insistence upon partnership between employers and employees is evident best advocates in Supreme Court of India the Solicitor’s(1) case and (1) [1962] Supp. The changes made in the meaning of the expressions used in the definition of industry in the Act, disclose a procrustean approach to the problem.
In the circumstances, we do not think it fit to express any opinion on the matter. 33(2)(b) of the Act, as interpreted, by this Court, in its decision in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. and for (1) [1961] INSC 198; [1962] 2 S. Applying that approach, he regarded the present case as exceptional. Secondly, it would not undermine or conflict with the contract between the Lead Claimants and the Managers, which had provided for the payment of VAT “if applicable”.
In that regard, the judge referred at para 49 to the statements of the Court of Justice in Elida Gibbs Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs (Case C-317/94) [1996] ECR I-5339; [1997] QB 499, that “the basic principle of the VAT system is that it is intended to tax only the final consumer” (para 19), and that the taxable persons “collect the tax on behalf of the tax authorities and account for it to them” (para 22). 16(4) was an exception and it could not be so construed as to render nugatory or illusory the guarantee conferred by Art.
At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Labour Court has held in favour of the management, that it has complied with the proviso to s. Dr Burnside replied in March 2006 by a letter under cover of which he filed new claims, which this time were limited to pemetrexed disodium, and are now embodied in the claims of the Patent as set out in para 21 above. Mr Hunt’s loan to EMSL and EMSL’s consequent discharge of Swynson’s loan were exactly as Mr Hunt specified and intended.
It has not really carved out an exception, but has preserved a power untrammelled by the other provisions of the Article. The affidavits do not give sufficient materials on the point, nor is there any prayer in the petition for the issue of a mandamus directing the State Government to grant the exemption. “The expression ‘nothing in this article’ is a legislative device to express its intention in a most emphatic way that the power conferred thereunder is not limited in any way by the main provision but falls outside it.
It was pointed out that though under Art. First, to allow the Lead Claimants to recover from the Commissioners would not, in his view, involve any risk of double recovery, as any claim against the Managers would face a cast iron defence of change of position, since they had accounted to the Commissioners for the entirety of the tax and retained no benefit for themselves (this reasoning mistakenly presumed that the Managers were entitled to retain the notional £25, as deductible input tax, and that the notional £75 was irrecoverable by the Managers from the Commissioners).