District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co.

7 SCC 358Reported decision2001#1804 most cited

What is District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. authority for?

A tax cannot be collected or recovered if the law does not provide a machinery for its collection and recovery. If a statutory provision has multiple interpretations, the court must choose the one that reflects the legislature's true intention.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. · (2001) 7 SCC 358 · no machinery for collection and recovery of tax · tax cannot be collected · interpretation of statute · intention of legislature

Judgments citing District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co.

Sanjeev Batish, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 80Section 80I

…ore than one meaning, the Court has to choose the interpretation which represents the intention of the legislature. In this connection, the following observations made by this Court in District Mining Officer v. TISCO [District Mining Officer v. TISCO, (2001) 7 SCC 358] , may be noticed: (SCC pp. 382-83, para 18) “18. … A statute is an edict of the legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary, to seek the intention of its maker. A statute has to be construed according to the intent of them that make it and the duty of the court is to act upon the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Shimla vs. M/S Aarham Softronics

C.A. No.-001784-001784 - 2019Supreme Court20 Feb 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 80Section 80I

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1784 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23172 OF 2018) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. AARHAM SOFTRONICS .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1785 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23176 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1786 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23179 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1788 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 24678 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1787 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23414 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1789 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF…

Commnr. of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dilip Kumar and Company

C.A. No.-003327-003327 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jul 2018

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3327 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T N . V . R A M A N A , J . 1. This Constitution Bench is setup to examine the correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 [hereinafter referred as ‘Sun Export Case’ for brevity], namely the question is ­ What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting…

M/S.S B Minerals vs. State of Karnataka

WP/17000/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15432/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S Gavisiddeswara Enterprises vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/17583/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

Smt.R.Mallamma vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31145/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

S V Srinivasulu S/O Late S.V.Chetty vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/15795/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

Sri. M.Srinivasulu vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15985/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S Mehboob Transport Company vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15954/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S. S.B Minerals vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31129/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthiah & Bros vs. State of Karnataka

WP/16145/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31148/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

Sri.S.A.Thawab vs. State of Karnataka

WP/10712/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S B Ashwathnarayana Singh & Co vs. State of Karnataka & Others

WP/31327/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

H N Premakumar S/O Late H.N.N. Setty vs. State of Karnataka Rep by Its Secretary

WP/6721/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

Banashankari Iron Ore Mines vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/31184/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/29222/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31191/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

M/S Trident Minerals & Others vs. State of Karnataka

WP/30928/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…utive to notify the body who has to collect and remit the tax to the State Government. He also contended that Section 98-A is not relatable to Rule 102 of the Rules. Reliance was also placed on District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [(2001) 7 SCC 358] to contend that where there is no machinery envisaged for collection and recovery of tax, in such as case, there can be no collection of tax at all. (x) Placing reliance on K.T.Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], it was contended that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it provid…

District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. (7 SCC 358) — Cited in 63 Judgments | BharatTax