Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Entry tax

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

The appellants, being dealers as per the VAT Act, by selling to the State warehouse caused to be effected the entry of IMFL and beer into the local area within the meaning of Sections 3(1)(a), 2(1)(aa), 2(1)(b) and 2(3) of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976, and are therefore liable to pay entry tax; Section 3B is only a machinery/enabling provision and absence of a notification under it does not preclude assessment and collection under Section 14; the State warehouse arrangement constituted two independent transactions and did not render the manufacturers' sale inseverable from the retailers' purc…

Source excerpt

  • Entry of goods into a local area
  • Incidence of taxation
  • Canalising agency and inseverable transactions
  • Statutory interpretation of section 3b and section 14
Read case analysis
Criminal law

BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Where a Settlement Commission has granted immunity (under Section 32K CE Act / Section 127H CA 1962) and the fiscal liability was later found not to exist on remand (with an entitlement to a refund), and where proceedings instituting prosecution post-dated the immunity application, the prosecution could not be sustained; mere registration of FIR did not amount to institution of prosecution and, on the facts, the discharge application should have been allowed and proceedings against the company quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Immunity from prosecution
  • Discharge application
  • Registration of fir
  • Cognizance and chargesheet
  • Assessment and refund
  • Abuse of process
Read case analysis
Taxation

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA & ANR. versus MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS.

The Court held that excise contractors were not "buyers" under Explanation(a) to Section 206C because (1) the contractors obtained only the right to retail vend by auction (the arrack itself was procured subsequently from warehouses/depots on permits), so the goods were not obtained by auction, and (2) the retail sale price was fixed by statute within a prescribed minimum and maximum range (thus statutorily fixed); both conjunctive conditions of Explanation(a)(iii) were satisfied, so Section 206C did not apply to Mysore Sales. Further, orders under Section 206C(6) require adequate notice and…

Source excerpt

  • Section 206c (tds)
  • Explanation (a)(iii) to section 206c
  • Natural justice
  • Auction vs licence
  • Statutory interpretation
Read case analysis
Administrative law

PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

The substituted Rule 19 (substituted on 29.03.2011), which reduced the quantum of penalty, applies to the pending proceedings initiated after its substitution (demand notice dated 22.11.2011); Section 10 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 does not, by itself, preserve a repealed subordinate rule for liabilities, and Section 63 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 does not continue a repealed provision to rights and liabilities; accordingly penalty must be assessed as per substituted Rule 19 and the Division Bench judgment is set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Subordinate legislation
  • Prospective and retrospective operation
  • Repeal and substitution
  • Penalty imposition
  • General clauses act
  • Rule-making power
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus AKHIL SHARDA & ORS.

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively conducting a mini trial and by quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without appropriately considering the allegations of a larger interconnected conspiracy and without allowing proper investigation; accordingly the High Court's order quashing proceedings under Section 406 IPC (Case Crime No.260 of 2018 / Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019) was set aside and the trial court proceedings were restored to file.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
  • Appreciation of evidence at quashing stage
  • Interconnected firs and conspiracy
  • Speedy pronouncement of reserved judgments
Read case analysis
Excise law

STATE OF U.P. THR. SECRETARY AND ORS. versus PREM CHOPRA

The Supreme Court held that an interim stay does not quash the underlying demand and, upon dismissal of the substantive proceedings, the interim order merges into the final order and the beneficiary of the interim order must pay interest on amounts withheld; therefore the High Court erred in holding the respondent not liable for interest and the appeal is allowed setting aside the High Court order.

Source excerpt

  • Interim orders
  • Stay of recovery
  • Interest on arrears
  • Restitution
  • Effect of interim stay vs quashing
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

STATE OF UP THROUGH SECRETARY (EXCISE) & ORS. versus M/S MCDOWELL AND COMPANY LIMITED

Excise duty became exigible upon production/distillation of the liquor (taxable event is manufacture/production); Rule 7(11) (1% allowance) and Rule 709 (distillers liable for loss due to negligence) apply to bottled IMFL; the fire was not an act of God and, on the facts and reports (indications of electrical fault, old wiring/roof, firefighting observations) the loss was attributable to negligence of the licencee; insurance of liquor value without insuring excise duty reinforces negligence; accordingly the demand for excise duty was authorised by law and recovery was rightful, so the High Co…

Source excerpt

  • Article 265 constitution of india
  • Uttar pradesh excise act, 1910
  • Uttar pradesh bottling of foreign liquor rules, 1969
  • Uttar pradesh excise manual
  • Rule 7(11) rules of 1969
  • Rule 709 excise manual
Read case analysis
Income tax

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING & MARKETING CORPORATION LTD. versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

The Court held that s.40(a)(iib) disallows deduction of amounts (royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge or any other fee or charge) levied exclusively on, or appropriated from, a State Government undertaking; gallonage fee, licence fee and shop rental (kist) payable under the Abkari Act for FL-9 and FL-1 licences granted to KSBC fall within s.40(a)(iib) and are not deductible, whereas surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax are taxes (enhancements of basic sales tax) and not 'fee or charge' within s.40(a)(iib)(A)/(B) and therefore do not fall to be disallowed under t…

Source excerpt

  • Section 40(a)(iib) of income-tax act
  • Deductibility of fees/charges
  • Exclusive levy on state government undertakings
  • Surcharge on sales tax
  • Turnover tax
  • Interpretation and legislative intent
Read case analysis
Excise law

G H M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE versus K. DEVAMANI & ORS.

Rule 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970, allows shifting of licensed liquor shops from one place to another within the Union Territory, including across regions, provided statutory and licensing conditions are met. There is no territorial restriction inherent in the term 'place', and no prohibition exists in the Excise Act or Rules against such transfer. The High Court's restrictive interpretation was erroneous.

Source excerpt

  • Liquor licensing
  • Interpretation of statutory terms
  • Transfer of licensed premises
Read case analysis
Excise law

MUSTAFA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

The procedure and jurisdiction for confiscation of vehicles seized for offences under the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 are governed solely by the Act, with the Collector having exclusive authority to confiscate or release such property, and Courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure lacking jurisdiction except regarding distribution of sale proceeds after conclusion of prosecution.

Source excerpt

  • Confiscation of vehicles
  • Jurisdiction of collector
  • Procedure under excise act
  • Inconsistency with criminal procedure code
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.