34 of the Indian Income-tax Act as it stood prior to the amending Act of 1939 and the NRI Legal Services general scheme of the Mysore Act was the same as that of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood before 1939. Subbaiah Shetty and continued further execution proceedings suppressing the facts that only half the share of NRI Legal Services the first plaintiff at least worth Rs. It also leads to grave public NRI Legal Services mischief. The 1st defendant put up the entire schedule item for sale and bid at the court auction on 14.
The deprivation, if at all, is not real. By applying for refund yet, he is trying NRI Legal Services to reap a windfall; Any proposition to the contrary not only results in substantial prejudice to public interest but is offensive to several well-established principles of law. 34 of the Indian Penal NRI Legal Services Code in a charge had only an academic significance where the accused had notice as to what they were being charged with. The obligation to prove that duty has not been passed on to another person is always there as a precondition to claim of refund.
, that they should belong to the owner of the land. 1,50,000/- in items 1 to 3 could be brought to sale. 4(1) NRI Legal Services Of the Act which did not come into operation. Some of the important witnesses have been mentioned in the First Information Report and the inquest itself was over within 24 hours after the incident. ” It corresponds to s. There is yet another circumstance: Section 12-B does not create a new presumption unknown till then; it merely gives statutory shape to an existing situation, as explained hereinbefore.
Subbaiah Shetty of the decree in O. Once the assessment or levy has become final in his case, he cannot seek to reopen it nor can he claim refund without reopening such assessment/order on the ground of a decision in another persons case. (iv) It is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a court or tribunal rendered in the case of another person. At the most, it can be said that there were two views on the subject and Section 12-B affirms one of them.
Even without Section 12-B, the true position is the same, as held by us in the earlier part of this judgment. Taking the consistent evidence of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case it has to be stated that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as regards the incident has to be believed We have not had the advantage of a critical and analytical examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by either of the courts below nor has the evidence against each of the appellants been collated and therefore it was necessary for its to examine the evidence in some detail.
It cannot also be said that by giving retrospective effect to Section 11-B, any vested rights or substantive rights are being taken away. This Court in Rawalpenta Venkulu v. Provided further that no notification under clause (f) of the first proviso shall be issued unless in the opinion of the Central Government the incidence of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has not been passed on by the persons concerned to any other person.
The State of Hyderabad (1), held that the omission to add s. Section 72 of the Contract Act, or for that matter Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, has no application to such a claim for refund. The only doctrine which we can apply is the doctrine established in India that the party so building on another’s land should be allowed to remove the materials. 4(1) of the Act could arise only on the issue of a valid notification in conformity with the provisions of that sub-section and as there was no such notification the assessees were not liable under s.
Subbaiah Shetty, who himself was anxious to get a share in illegal gains. Liability to pay the 522 tax under s. A person, whether a manufacturer or importer, must fight his own battle and must succeed or fail in such proceedings. The sale and subsequent confirmation is vitiated and void as only half share was attached, but against the attachment itself the full properties including the properties which were not subject matter of the attachment were brought to sale and purchased.
Subsections (1) and (2) Of s. The manufacturer has already collected the duty from his purchaser and has thus reimbursed itself. Thus stabbing at the back of the 1st plaintiff and got the same confirmed on 06. Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged, had the income, profits or gains, not escaped assessment, or full assessment, as the case may be. It is learnt that the 1st defendant, however, got a general power of attorney from N.
1962 for a paltry sum of Rs. We cannot, however, apply to cases arising in India the doctrine of the English law as to buildings, viz. He cannot also claim that the decision of the court/tribunal in another persons case has led him to discover the mistake of law under which he has paid the tax nor can he claim that he is entitled to prefer a writ petition or to institute a suit within three years of such alleged discovery of mistake of law.
108 of the Transfer of Property Act, before the expiry of the lease, a lessee can remove all structures and buildings erected by him on the demised land. This again was maneuvered without any consideration to please the multi-millionaire N. 4 are mutually exclusive, and their periods of application being different both could not apply at the same time and no notification was necessary to bring into operation sub-s.