REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF BIHAR Appellant

V/S

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

EYSTON V. STUDD [REFERRED TO]
HEYDON'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
SEAFORD COURT ESTATES LTD. V. ASHER [REFERRED TO]
D. A MINOR V. BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
BLACK-CLAWSON INTERNATIONAL LTD. V. PAPIERWERKE WALDHOF-ASCHAFFENBURG AG [REFERRED TO]
POOVERJEE B BHARUCHA VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AJMER [REFERRED TO]
TIRATH SINGH VS. BACHITTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VS. S TEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SADIQ ALI P KAKKAN VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI:CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
HAR SHANKAR VS. DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMR [REFERRED TO]
EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P ALLAHABAD VS. PREM JEET SINGH GUJRAL [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENT CO LIMITED STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. MENT COMPANY LIMITED:PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENT COMPANY LIMITED:RESERVE BANK OF INDIA:PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENF COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GOODYEAR INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA:GEDORE TOOLS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
PANDEY ORAON VS. RAM CHANDER SAHU [REFERRED TO]
A. SANYASI RAO V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPOT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KUNHAMMED KUTTY HAJI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
T.K. ABOOBACKER V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAT PAL AND CO VS. EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the State of Bihar is a "seller" of alcoholic liquor for human consumption "within the meaning of Section 44AC and Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is the question involved in this writ application ?"

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the State of Bihar, exercises control in respect of alcoholic liquor for human consumption from the stage of manufacture of spirit to that of consumption of alcoholic liquor by the consumers in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Excise Act, 1930, and the rules framed thereunder.

(3.) BY reason of various orders/demands which are contained in annexure 5 series, however, assessment orders were passed and demands were made by respondents Nos. 3 to 9 holding that petitioners Nos. 4 to 11 who are Superintendents of Excise were required to deposit the amounts mentioned therein and they have failed to collect the amount of tax and credit the same to the Central Government's Account, in terms of the aforementioned provisions, they are bound to pay amounts mentioned in the respective orders/demands.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF BIHAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address