Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P

11 SCC 573Reported decision2008#22088 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Judgments citing Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

SLP(C) No.-006092 - 2025Supreme Court14 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 6Section 6(2)(a)Section 6(2)(b)Section 67(2)Section 70Section 73

…ctment. The use of the word “any” in conjunction with “proceedings” reflects the legislative intent to give the provision a broad and inclusive scope. To buttress this submission, he relied on the decision in K.P. Mohammed Salim v. CIT, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 573. Furthermore, Section 6 of the CGST Act, is part of Chapter II of the Act which deals with Administration. As a sequitur, it ought to apply to all the “proceedings” contemplated under the subsequent provisions. 18. Lastly, Mr. Potaraju emphasized that officers under the GST regime are governed by the provisions set out in Chapter II of the…

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 21(1), DELHI

ITA/124/2020HC Delhi08 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 56(2)(viia)

…―13. An order of transfer is passed for the purpose of assessment of income. It serves a larger purpose. Such an order has to be passed in public interest. Only because in the said provision the words 4 (2008) 11 SCC 573. Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:08.05.2024 15:45:04 Signature Not Verified ITA 124/2020 and connected matters Page 20 of 22 ―any case‖ has been mentioned, the same, in our opinion, would not mean that an order of transfer cannot be passed in respect of cases involving more than one assessm…

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MMK JEWELLERS

Appeals are dismissed on the ground of limitation, therefore, we do not

C.A. No.-000813-000814 - 2004Supreme Court11 Mar 2008

For Respondent: M.M.K. Jewellers & Another

…New Delhi (2004) 13 SCC 719. In this case, this court again held that as there is no suppression, penalty cannot be imposed. 45. This court relied on these judgments in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v Collector of Central Excise, A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 573. In this case, this court again reiterated the legal position and held that when there is no suppression of facts, the department would not be justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. 46. In view of the clear legal position crystallized by a series of judgments that in case where the assessees are not guilty of suppressio…