REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Vodafone South Limited Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U P Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER (BOM) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
T DEVADASAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND UNOTHER [REFERRED]
SAGHIR AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
M P V SUNDARARAMIER AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
DEEP CHAND BRAHMAN LAL SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH HARI SHANKER SHYAM LAL RAM PRASAD JAIN TRANSPORT GENERAL TRADING CO JAIPAL SINGH VIRENDRA PAL GUPTA VISHAMBHAR DAYAL GUPTA REJENDRAPAL SIA RAM BRIJPAL SINGH PANDIT SRINIVAS MADHO RAM MOHI UDD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
MAHENDRA LAL JAINI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
FIRM A T B MEHTAB MAJID AND CO A ABDUL SHAKOOR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED]
B N TEWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KOTESWAR VITTAL KAMATH VS. K RANGAPPA BALIGA AND CO [REFERRED]
INDIA TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BHAVANIPORE [REFERRED]
BHAGAT RAM SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
WEST U P SUGAR MILLS ASSN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
RAKESH VIJ VS. RAMINDER PAL SINGH SETHI [REFERRED]
TAJ ADVERTISING VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED]
ANURAG BANSAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for respondents.

(2.) All these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) Demand of advertisement tax in accordance with Agra Nagar Nigam (Samachar Patro Me Prakashit Vigyapano Par Kar Ka Nirdharan Karna Aur Use Vasool Karna) Niyamawali, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2005") published in U.P. Gazette dated 10.09.2005 and came into force on 01.04.2005 has been challenged on the ground that no such rules were in existence in the year of demand, i.e., 2010-11 and, therefore, demand of advertisement tax under Rules, 2005 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal.

Click here to view full judgment.

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address