Question:
The Supreme Court of India in which case dealt with the validity of the entry tax?
The Supreme Court of India in which case dealt with the validity of the entry tax?
Updated On: Aug 4, 2024
- M. C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1087
- Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
- Jindal Stainless Ltd.& Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2017) 12 SCC 1
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct answer is option (D):Jindal Stainless Ltd.& Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2017) 12 SCC 1.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Tax Law
- What is the condition prescribed under Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an individual to be classified as a ‘Resident’ in India for tax purposes?
- Under which provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the scope of the resident’s ‘total income’ covered?
- In the present case, the levy of IGST on the supply of ocean freight services under the reverse charge mechanism on the importer, when the value of such service is already included in the transaction value of imported goods, amounts to double taxation. The concept of double taxation implies that the same subject matter is taxed twice when it should be taxed only once. The GST law, as framed, does not envisage taxation of a transaction twice, and the fundamental principles of GST do not support such an imposition. Further, the importer, who is not the recipient of the service but is treated as a deemed recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, cannot be made liable to pay tax on a service that they have not directly availed. This stretches the scope of reverse charge mechanism beyond its intended purpose, which is to simplify tax collection by shifting the liability to pay tax from the service provider to the service recipient, particularly in cases where the service provider is located outside India and does not have a presence within the taxable territory. Moreover, the constitutional framework requires that a tax should be levied with legislative competence and should not contravene any fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The imposition of IGST on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism without proper legislative backing undermines the very essence of taxation principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.
(This extract is taken from Mohit Minerals v. Union of India CA No. 1390/2022) - Following principles are considered as settled while interpreting taxation statutes:
- While Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the disclosures as to income “not disclosed before the Assessing Officer” must accompany the application filed before the Settlement Commission, Section 245H provides that if the assessee has cooperated with the Settlement Commission and has made “full and true disclosure of his income”, the Settlement Commission may grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. It is the case of the Revenue that Section 245H (1) cannot be read in isolation as Section 245C is embedded in 245H(1), and hence, both the Sections must be read harmoniously. That when so read, the requirement under Section 245H would be that disclosure of income “not disclosed before the Assessing Officer” must be made before the Commission
In this regard, it is observed that even if the pre-conditions prescribed under Section 245C are to be read into Section 245H, it cannot be said that in every case, the material “disclosed” by the assessee before the Commission must be something apart from what was discovered by the Assessing Officer. Section 245C read with Section 245H only contemplates full and true disclosure of income to be made before the Settlement Commission, regardless of the disclosures or discoveries made before/by the Assessing Officer. It is to be noted that the Order passed by Assessing Officer based on any discovery made, is not the final word, for, it is appealable. However, the assessee may accept the liability, in whole or in part, as determined in the assessment order. In such a case, the assessee may approach the Settlement Commission making ‘full and true disclosure’ of his income and the way such income has been derived. Such a disclosure may also include the income discovered by the Assessing Officer.
[Extracted with edits from the decision of the Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 822, dated September 25, 2023].
View More Questions
Questions Asked in AILET LLM exam
- As per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which of the following statement is false?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Family Laws
- In relation to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 match the following and identify correct answer:Select the correct option:
(A) Conditions for a Hindu Marriage (i) Section 13 (B) Registration of Hindu Marriage (ii) Section 10 (C) Judicial Separation (iii) Section 5 (D) Divorce (iv) Section 8 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Family Laws
- Match the followingSelect the correct option
I. Arbitration of excepted matters 1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 II. Conditional Arbitration Clauses 2. In re - Interplay between Arb Agreements and Stamp Act 2023 INSC 1066 III. Separability of Arbitration Agreement - Kompetenz Kompetenz 3. Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v. Maharaj Singh and Anr (1976) 1 SCC 943 IV. Arbitrability of fraud 4. Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co v. ONGC (2020) 3 SCC 222 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Arbitration Law
- Match the followingSelect the correct option:
I. Uti Possidetis 1. Principle in customary international law providing that where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances since an agreement was concluded, a party to that agreement may withdraw from or terminate it. II. Pacta Sunt Servanda 2. Two or more states equally exercise sovereignty with respect to a territory and its inhabitants. III. Condominium 3. Doctrine that territory remains with the possessor state at the end of war or occupation unless otherwise determined by a treaty or an agreement. IV. Rebus Sic Stantibus 4. Proposition that treaties are binding upon the parties to them and must be performed in good faith. - AILET LLM - 2025
- Public International Law
- Pick the correct statement:
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Company Law
View More Questions