9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 21 to 33 of 33 Records Search Text: Galaxy organics ltd |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (28) Circulars (4) News (1) |
|
2019 (7) TMI 723 - CESTAT MUMBAI Imposition of penalty u/s 76 of FA - delayed payment of service tax - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - alleged failure to pay their service tax liability on or before the due date for the period April 2012 to March 2014 - failure to file returns - HELD THAT:- Penalty under Section 76 is for failure to deposit the tax in time. When admittedly appellants were not depositing the tax by the due date, the penalties need to be imposed even if the appellants claim no mens rea - Demand an... ... ...
1993 (10) TMI 352 - Supreme Court The court ruled that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should have significant influence but not absolute primacy in judicial appointments. The CJI, representing the judiciary, must be consulted, and the executive cannot override the CJI's opinion without compelling reasons. The court held that judge strength is justiciable to compel the executive to fulfill its duty, with the CJI proposing increases. The judiciary's independence is crucial, and appointments should be based on merit. The CJI's recommendation is essential for judge transfers, and the CJI's collective opinion should have primacy in appointments.
2025 (4) TMI 92 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT The HC examined challenges to Section 168A of the CGST Act and notifications extending compliance timelines during COVID-19. Petitioners contested the validity of Section 168A's insertion through TOLA, arguing it bypassed proper legislative procedures. They also challenged notifications extending Section 73(10) timelines, claiming they lacked GST Council recommendation and were improperly issued by CBIC rather than Central Government. Additionally, petitioners questioned the GST Implementation Committee's authority to make policy decisions. The court deferred final determination on all issues due to a pending SC case addressing similar questions, maintaining status quo until the higher court's ruling.
2016 (11) TMI 545 - Supreme Court (LB) Constitutional validity of levy of entry tax - power of the state legislature - Article 304(a) of the Constitution - non-obstante clause - Interpretation of word Free used in Article 301 - concept of compensatory tax - separation of power between the Legislature and judiciary on the ground that levy of taxes under Article 304(b) - distinction between a tax and a fee - HELD THAT:- The essential difference between a tax and a fee is that while a tax has no element of quid pro quo, a fee without th... ... ...
2002 (1) TMI 1285 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that the State Legislatures lacked the competence to levy market fees on tobacco under the Agricultural Produce Market Acts due to the enactment of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, by Parliament. The judgment affirmed the constitutionality of the Tobacco Board Act, denuding State Legislatures of their power to legislate on tobacco sales. It also concluded that the provisions of the State Agricultural Produce Market Acts were invalid concerning the levy of market fees on tobacco, as they clashed with the Tobacco Board Act.
Trading and settlement of trades in dematerialised securities The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a circular mandating the trading and settlement of securities in dematerialized form. Companies were required to establish connectivity with both depositories by specific dates. Of 275 scrips, 126 established connectivity and will be traded in dematerialized form from May 28, 2001. The remaining 146 scrips, lacking connectivity, will trade on a "trade for trade" basis starting March 19, 2001. Additionally, 77 companies previously on "trade for trade" have established connectivity and will trade normally from March 26, 2001, transitioning to compulsory dematerialized trading by June 25, 2001.
1999 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, MUMBAI S/Shri J.H. Joglekar, G.N. Srinivasan, JJ.
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Balu Iyer, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR, for the Respondents.
[Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. -
The above mentioned COD applications arise out of the same impugned order and are taken up together for disposal. After hearing both the sides, we condone the delay in filing six appeals.
2. On hearing Shri Babu Iyer for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke, for the revenue on the sta... ... ...
1992 (12) TMI 216 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR as it disclosed offenses against the accused. It affirmed the legality of the FIR based on various sources and rejected claims of mala fide intentions. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to issue letters rogatory for assistance from Swiss authorities. It emphasized the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed without hindrance and set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the investigation to continue.
1973 (4) TMI 114 - Supreme Court The Court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, ruling that they did not abrogate fundamental rights or undermine the basic structure of the Constitution. The amendments were deemed valid as they did not exceed the amending power of Parliament and were within the constitutional framework.
The circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, notifies the designation of Authorized Officers at 157 Points of Entry (PoEs) for food imports under the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006, and the FSS (Import) Regulation, 2017. Out of these, 104 PoEs are to be managed by Customs officials, while 53 are under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) officials. The document also provides an updated list of Food Testing Laboratories accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for analyzing imported food samples.
1994 (3) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY The High Court set aside the confiscation orders of Lauryl Alcohol imported under OGL, ruling that the retrospective effect of the amendment was impermissible. The petitioners were successful, and no costs were awarded.
1985 (7) TMI 377 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, except for specific provisions. The definition of 'family' under Section 2(f) and the maximum amount payable under Section 11(6) were upheld. However, subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Section 23, the opening words of Section 23(4), and Section 27(1) were struck down as unconstitutional. The Act was found to align with the Directive Principles of State Policy, except for the invalidated sections.
1980 (11) TMI 159 - Supreme Court The court upheld the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, except for the restriction on the transfer of property within the ceiling area imposed by Section 27(1). The definition of 'family' in Section 2(f) and the provisions of Sections 23 and 11(6) were found to be valid and not in violation of the Constitution. The writ petitions were dismissed except for the partial invalidation of Section 27(1), and there was no order as to costs.
12 |
