//
archives

nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp

This tag is associated with 13 posts

“(ii) Levy of life tax on the CEVs in mining industry: Some CEVs are designed for digging, carrying, loading/unloading, drilling with or without special modification for use in mining industry. Section 10 of the Taxation Act exempts such CEVs used solely in mining and agricultural purposes from payment of MV Tax. The Section makes it conditional that all these vehicles should also be registered under the MV Act. Indeed any class of motor vehicles cannot be permitted to be driven in a public place without being registered in accordance with Chapter IV of the MV Act. As per Section 41, an application for registration shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government by the Rules. As per Rule 47 of the Central Rules, an application for registration shall be made in Form 20 to the Registering Authority. There is no dispute that at the time of registration, Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 (the A.P. Rules) requires the Registering Authority to make an entry regarding the amount of tax paid in the certificate of registration. Rule 6 of the A.P. Rules requires the owner to make the payment of tax at the time of registration of the vehicle. Therefore even when a motor vehicle is designed and used for mining purpose, first it has to obtain registration by paying tax so as to seek exemption under Section 10 of the Taxation Act. The grievance of the petitioners, though well founded, in view of the additional affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary the position is now clear that all those petitioners who use the CEVs for mining operations, can seek refund of the life tax after obtaining the exemption from the competent authority.”

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR                                WRIT PETITION NO.51 OF 2012 DATED:3.1.2012 Between:   SMS Infrastructure Ltd., Thummalapally, Uranium Mine Project Vemula Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District Rep. by its Chief Vigilance and Administrative Officer S.M. Khaleel, S/o. Late S.M. Bazlullah R/o.D.No.4-8-205/6 Subhakar Reddy Colony Pulivendula … Continue reading

The petitioner in W.P.No.16585 of 2009, who passed SSC in 2003 without prosecuting two years Intermediate Course obtained B.A. Degree through Dr.B.R.Ambedkar University in 2009 appeared for LAWCET and secured 1006 rank, was denied admission on the ground that he has not prosecuted 10+2 and directly obtained degree through Open University and not eligible for admission as per the Explanation added to Rule 5. =Admittedly, the task to maintain legal standards was referred to an expert body like “Legal Education Committee” and the Committee after due deliberation with eminent personnel connected with the law course suggested standards to be maintained to meet the global challenges. The students who obtained graduation through regular course are well equipped and their accent is different in information and resources once they are in law practice, whereas the students who obtained bachelor’s degree under Open University will not be equipped with rare degrees of qualities. Therefore, the curriculum, which was finalised by the BCI, cannot be termed as perverse or irrational to the object sought to be achieved nor can it be termed as arbitrary and illegal.

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU   + W.P.Nos.16585, 18135, 19072, 19076,  20521, 21977, 22588, 22587, 19945,17100, 17966 & 23658  of 2009   % 31-12-2009 WP NO.16585/2009: #B. Mallesham          ..Petitioner Vs. $1. The Bar Council of India represented by its Secretary, New Delhi  and others.                                      ..Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner            : Mr.B.H.R. Chowdhary Mr. … Continue reading

SARFAESI Act,=avail the alternative remedy available under law, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.= it is to be noticed that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13 (4) by the secured creditor or his authorized officer has to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken. Against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, a further appeal lies under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to the Appellate Tribunal. In the light of such efficacious alternative remedy available under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19260 OF 2011   Dated: 08.07.2011 Between: 1. Ch. Vijay Thomas and another.          …                          Petitioners AND The State Bank of Hyderabad, RACPC, rep. by Its Manager, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad., And another.          …          Respondents                                       … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com