Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

2 SCC 218Reported decision1972#1893 most cited
60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Also referred to as

Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala · Tea Act 1953 · legislative competence · constitutional entries · Entry 52 List I · Entry 54 List I · Entry 18 List II · Entry 42 List III · Seventh Schedule Constitution · Union List State List Concurrent List

Judgments citing Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

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

WP/17000/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S Gavisiddeswara Enterprises vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/17583/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

Smt.R.Mallamma vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31145/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

Sri. M.Srinivasulu vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15985/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S Mehboob Transport Company vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15954/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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

WP/31129/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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

WP/16145/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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

WP/10712/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

Banashankari Iron Ore Mines vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/31184/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31191/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

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

WP/30928/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S Nadeem Minerals vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15809/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

Vedanta Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/44793/2013HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

Steel Authority of India Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/35251/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

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

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2 SCC 218) — Cited in 60 Judgments | BharatTax