HANSRAJ AND SONS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JAMMU & KASHMIR)
Decided on
July 17,2002
HANSRAJ AND SONS
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
A V FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MISHRIJAL TARACHAND LODHA [REFERRED]
DIWAN BROS VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA BOMBAY [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX GUJARAT III AHMEDABAD VS. ELLIS BRIDGE GYMKHANA [REFERRED]
BANK OF CHETTINAD LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS [REFERRED]
GIRDHARI LAL ANAND SARAF VS. STATE OF J&K [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
HOME SOLUTIONS RETAILS INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-272] [REFERRED TO]VALLABH VIDYANAGAR COMMERCIAL COOP BANK LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-280] [REFERRED TO]
ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA SOCIETY, DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 35, MAKER TOWER "F", 3RD FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE & FORESTS, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI 400 032 [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-167] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANDAS VS. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2011-8-177] [REFERRED TO]
L H SUGAR FACTORYLTD VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD PILIBHIT [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-125] [REFERRED TO]
KESERWANI ZARDA BHANDAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. ING. VYSYA BANK LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-264] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. NTPC LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PONDICHERRY VS. ACER INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2004-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR AND JAI PRAKASH THROUGH SRI KRISHNA KUMAR S/O LATE JAI PRAKASH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-322] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH UDYOG VYAPAR PRATINIDHI MANDALS AND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2003-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
ASSTT COMMR OF C EX , TIRUCHIRAPALLI VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-642] [REFERRED]
ALUKKAS JEWELLERY VS. STATE OF KERALA REP [LAWS(KER)-2006-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
GURBAX RAI AGGARWAL VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2005-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
Indian Home Pipe Company LTD VS. Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
WALIA CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. STATE OF J&K & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2003-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH OIL MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2004-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
ABIS EXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA DAL and BASIN MILLS VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2004-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND A [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-119] [REFERRED TO]
V. SYAMALA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-4-120] [REFERRED TO]
J K CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR AND SRI S V RANGA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
M/S BHUSHAN STEEL LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)Leave is granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
(2.)The controversy raised in these cases relates only to the legality and validity of the levy of additional toll tax under Notification SRO 348 dated 20-8-82 on dry fruits like almonds, walnuts and walnut kernels. In view of the common questions involved in the cases they were heard together with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, and they are being disposed of by this judgment.
(3.)For the sake of convenience we will refer to relevant facts with reference to Writ Petition No. 660 of 1982 filed by M/s. Mehta Foods Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Jammu and Kashmir represented by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary in Ministry of Finance of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16852 of 1999. In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir the writ petitioner sought the following reliefs :
"It is, therefore, prayed that the Notification SRO 348 dated 20-8-1982 and Notification SRO 349 dated 20-8-1982 may be quashed by a writ of certiorari as the impugned Notification is ultra vires the statute and that it also violates the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India and is otherwise ultra vires of Article 286(i) of Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Court may grant such other relief as the circumstances of the case may warrant."
The respondents contested the case. That case and the other connected matters were decided by a Full Bench of the High Court by the judgment rendered on 23rd August, 1999.
(2.)The controversy raised in these cases relates only to the legality and validity of the levy of additional toll tax under Notification SRO 348 dated 20-8-82 on dry fruits like almonds, walnuts and walnut kernels. In view of the common questions involved in the cases they were heard together with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, and they are being disposed of by this judgment.
(3.)For the sake of convenience we will refer to relevant facts with reference to Writ Petition No. 660 of 1982 filed by M/s. Mehta Foods Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Jammu and Kashmir represented by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary in Ministry of Finance of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16852 of 1999. In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir the writ petitioner sought the following reliefs :
"It is, therefore, prayed that the Notification SRO 348 dated 20-8-1982 and Notification SRO 349 dated 20-8-1982 may be quashed by a writ of certiorari as the impugned Notification is ultra vires the statute and that it also violates the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India and is otherwise ultra vires of Article 286(i) of Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Court may grant such other relief as the circumstances of the case may warrant."
The respondents contested the case. That case and the other connected matters were decided by a Full Bench of the High Court by the judgment rendered on 23rd August, 1999.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.