SCA No. 16947 of 2003 · Gujarat High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Finance Act, 2000 ss. 112, 113
- Finance Act, 2003
- Finance Act, 1994 ss. 67, 68
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 265
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16947 OF 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? ========================================================= MESSRS SAIFALI STEEL LTD. & ANR. - Petitioner(s) Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR. PARESH M. DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR. PURVISH MALKAN for MR. JITENDRA MALKAN for Respondent(s): 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 04/07/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG) By this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge SCA/16947/2003 JUDGMENT constitutional validity of Sections 112 and 113 of the Finance Act, 2000 and Section-158 of the Finance Act, 2003 on the ground that the same are ultra vires Sections 67 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. It is to be seen that in the matter of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Union of India (2005 [182] E.L.T. 33), the Supreme Court has rejected such challenge. In view of the said judgement of the Supreme Court, nothing survives to be decided. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue their case before the concerned authorities qua the notices issued on the basis of Sections 112 and 113 of the Finance Act, 2000 and Section-158 of the Finance Act, 2003. No costs. kamlesh* [R.S.Garg, J.] [M. R. Shah, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Finance Act, 2000 — ss. 112, 113; Finance Act, 2003; Finance Act, 1994 — ss. 67, 68; Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 265.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 04 Jul 2006. The bench was R S GARG, M R SHAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.