Reference to the observation made by Fortesque J. Bentley’s case about God asking Adam and Eve whether they had eaten the forbidden fruit appearing in the judgment of Byles J. The Indian legislature endeavor in detail by the Limitation Act to state in the third column of the Schedule, the event which is to be taken as completing a cause of action that is the date from the time begins to run. Of course, it is fiction, but it is a fiction as to situts imposed by the Constitution Act and by the Supreme Court that speaks for it in these matters and only one fiction, not, a dozen little ones The States may tax the sale but may not disintegrate it and, under the guise of taxing the sale in truth and in fact, tax its various elements, one its head and one its tail, one its entrails and one its limbs by a legislative fiction that deems that the whole is within its claws simply because, after tearing it apart, it finds a hand 1382 or a foot or a heart or a liver still quivering in its grasp.
2537 of 2013 in MFA No. The respondents had therefore at the date of the Act a vested right to the finality of this judgment. The difference lies in the manner and mode of the two procedures. They have to be applied NRI Legal Services and followed implicitly wherever they are applicable. In the result, the plaintiff’s suit was decreed in its entirety. Both the parties appealed to the High Court of Bombay and the appeals were heard together.
The Wandsworth Board of Works (1) is apposite. It is also clear that a right to the finality of a judgment is a substantive right and that the acceptance of the appellant’s contention would result in depriving the respondents of such a right. Section 11-B/Section 27 are constitutionally valid, as explained by us hereinbefore. 2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga bench, in Review Petition No. To say that action to be taken under s. Even if a suit is filed, the very same condition operates.
The decision in the last mentioned case clearly establishes that in some cases it may be necessary to give an opportunity to a party to have his say before at) administrative action is taken against him. The said appeals were filed by the KIADB as it was aggrieved of certain observations made in the judgment, NRI Legal Services while remanding the case, which affects the merits of the case. The trial court, thereafter, decreed the suit in part, holding that the claim in respect of portions only of the mortgaged properties was barred by limitation.
On appeal the High Court of Sangli permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint originally filed so as to include the relief for redemption and remanded the suit. Similarly, the High Court while examining its jurisdiction under Article 226 ” and this Court while acting under Article 32 ” would insist upon the said condition being satisfied before ordering refund. 30702 of 2013 and writ petition No. I34 Of the Limitation Act applied. Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 27 of the Customs Act, whether before or after the 1991 Amendment ” as interpreted by us herein ” make every refund claim subject to proof of not passing on the burden of duty to others.
Nexus, of course, there must, be but nexus of the entire entity that is called a sale, wherever it is deemed to be situate. 53-A is an administrative action is not to say that the State Government has not to observe the ordinary rules of fair play. Their case was that the mortgaged properties had been sold at auction and purchased NRI Legal Services by their father who had sold most of them to other persons more than 12 years before the institution of the suit and as such the suit was barred by limitation.
But that is quite different from the well-ordered procedure involving notice and opportunity of hearing necessary to be followed before a quasi-judicial action, open to correction by a superior court by means of NRI Legal Services a writ, of certiorari, can be taken. Every decision favourable to an assessee/manufacturer, whether on the question of classification, valuation or any other issue, does not automatically entail refund. 100860 of 2013, whereunder the High Court was pleased to dispose of the above mentioned appeal and petitions by remitting the matter to the Reference Court to give an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiary and incidentally to the petitioner therein (the allottee Company).
The trial Court dismissed the suit. Challenge in the appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 3482-3484 of 2015, filed by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is NRI Legal Services arising out of the judgment and order dated 22. For the breach of the rules of fair play in taking administrative action a writ of certiorari will not lie. It may be conceded that the judgment of the Divisional Bench was final under the law as it stood at the date it was passed and no NRI Legal Services appeal lay from it before the Act came into force.
Unless the claimant for refund establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to another, he would not be entitled to refund, whatever be the proceeding and whichever be the forum. The High Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal and allowed the plaintiff’s appeal holding that Art. nI would therefore reject the nexus theory in so far as it means that any one sale can have existence and entity simultaneously in many different places.