Union of India v. Mohit Mineral (P) Ltd.

2 SCC 599Reported decision2019#17124 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Union of India v. Mohit Mineral (P) Ltd.

Jalaram Industries vs. Union of India

WP/6114/2020HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…e as it would at the most amount to double taxation i.e., taxing a taxable event on two occasions which per se is not impermissible, as per the discussion infra. In fact, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohit Mineral (P) Ltd. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 599 has observed that even post Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 there would be no bar for levy of surcharge even if there was a subsumation of various taxes. The relevant observation is as follows: "56. The expression used in Article 246-A is “power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax”. The power to make law, thus, is n…

Thrishul Zarda Pouches vs. Union of India

WP/713/2020HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…e as it would at the most amount to double taxation i.e., taxing a taxable event on two occasions which per se is not impermissible, as per the discussion infra. In fact, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohit Mineral (P) Ltd. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 599 has observed that even post Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 there would be no bar for levy of surcharge even if there was a subsumation of various taxes. The relevant observation is as follows: "56. The expression used in Article 246-A is “power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax”. The power to make law, thus, is n…

Harsh International Flavour vs. Union of India

WP/6122/2020HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…e as it would at the most amount to double taxation i.e., taxing a taxable event on two occasions which per se is not impermissible, as per the discussion infra. In fact, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohit Mineral (P) Ltd. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 599 has observed that even post Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 there would be no bar for levy of surcharge even if there was a subsumation of various taxes. The relevant observation is as follows: "56. The expression used in Article 246-A is “power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax”. The power to make law, thus, is n…

Fast Track Packers Private Limited vs. Union of India

WP/52374/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…e as it would at the most amount to double taxation i.e., taxing a taxable event on two occasions which per se is not impermissible, as per the discussion infra. In fact, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohit Mineral (P) Ltd. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 599 has observed that even post Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 there would be no bar for levy of surcharge even if there was a subsumation of various taxes. The relevant observation is as follows: "56. The expression used in Article 246-A is “power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax”. The power to make law, thus, is n…

Commissioner of Income Tax-3 International Taxation vs. Virage Logic International India

The appeals stand disposed of with above directions

ITA/173/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.” (emphasis added) 29. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo (2025) 2 SCC 599, the Supreme Court held that FIR, charge-sheet, and final report can be relied upon by the Tribunal to infer rash and negligent driving. Filing of a charge-sheet prima facie indicates negligence. The Tribunal needs to have a holistic view of the evidence available with it. The following was observed by the Supreme Court: “8. As regards the re…