|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 68 of 68 Records
-
1962 (11) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch cases be deemed to be part of the sale price and therefore of the turnover. This must depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 3.. In the present case, as stated above, the State Government had no case at the trial, that the sales tax collected was part of the sale price and whatever indication is available from exhibit P-1 is to the contrary. My attention was invited to the decision of a single judge of this Court in State of Kerala v. Raghavan Pillai(1) in which it was held that the observations of the Supreme Court though obiter must be held to overrule impliedly the Bench decision above referred to. In my view, the decision of the single Judge is distinguishable on the ground that the State Government had a case properly pleaded that the sales tax collected was part of the sale price. 4.. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the decree under appeal is right and must be affirmed. The appeal is therefore dismissed without costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (11) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ras, Veeraswami, J., held that the person concerned was not a dealer under the Act. The petitioner in that case was a sculptor and artist, who supplied two bronze casts to two State Governments at a cost of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 41,000 respectively. The learned judge held that the casts were made not for purposes of sale in open market but to please and satisfy his admirers. It was clear in that case that the assessee was not a sculptor by profession. That decision turned upon the question whether the assessee was a dealer or not. There was no necessity for the learned judge to consider the question whether there was in fact a sale or a taxable event under the Act. In the view taken by us that the appellant did not sell or supply pictures, but only drew pictures for remuneration, the Board s order cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds. The order of the Board of Revenue is set aside. The appellant will have his costs from the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Appeal allowed.
-
1962 (11) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... provision in the Madras General Sales Tax Act enabling the petitioner to make a refund of the tax already collected is wholly irrelevant as the question for consideration is not under what right the petitioner paid back the tax it had collected from its purchasers. Undoubtedly the tax collected by the petitioner had been refunded in view of the Government notification exempting sale of jaggery from tax and this it was entitled to do as it was not bound to keep the amount of tax illegally collected. After the issue of the notification by the Government which took effect from 1st April, 1958, the petitioner had no right to collect tax from its purchasers in respect of the sale of jaggery. We are unable to uphold the decision of the Board of Revenue which seems to be erroneous both on facts and in law. The revision petition is allowed and the department will pay the costs of the petitioner. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is hereby restored. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (11) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut on the same footing as the removal of a part from a car as a spare part. These decisions do not very much help us in considering the case which is before us. We have to read the provisions of the section as a whole and having so read them consider whether in plain English language one can ever say that a person who removed a part from a car for use as a spare part could be said to have produced that part. In our view it would be straining the language used in the section if we were to say that the respondents in this case produced any goods when they removed them from a car. In the result our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative. The answer to question No. 3 is purely dependent upon our answer to earlier questions Nos. 1 and 2. Our answer to question No. 3 is that the respondents are not liable to pay tax under section 5(1)(b)(ii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The applicant will pay to the respondents the costs of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sales by the petitioner of (sic.) goods which were actually delivered in Bihar as a direct result of such sales for the purpose of consumption in Bihar during the period 26th January, 1950, to 30th September, 1951, were sales, which took place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce within the meaning of Article 286(2) of the Constitution of India [as it stood prior to the passing of the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956] and as such were not liable to the levy of Bihar sales tax, or whether in view of the subsequent passing by the Parliament of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Act VII of 1956) such sales became liable to the levy of Bihar sales tax for any part of the above period, say from 1st April, 1951, up to 30th September, 1951?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court was in error in holding that the levy of the tax on the sales by the appellant between January 26, 1950, and March 31, 1951, with which this case is concerned, was covered by the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950. We will set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it so holds and answer the question which we have earlier set out in so far as it is outstanding, in the negative. In our view, these sales were not liable to tax.
-
1962 (11) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT
Taxability of sales of tea under the Travancore- Cochin General Sales Tax Act questioned
Held that:- Appeal allowed.In the present case, therefore, the sale was an "outside sale" and cannot be said to be an "inside sale" qua Travancore-Cochin because the title passed at Fort Cochin which is in the State of Madras. Apart from that, money was paid there and the delivery order was also received there even though the actual physical delivery of goods was made at Willingdon Island in the State of Travancore-Cochin. The fiction created by the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) is inapplicable because there was no delivery as a direct result of sale for the purpose of consumption in any particular State. Also in the case of those goods exported out of India from Willingdon Island it cannot be said that there was a sale inside the State of Travancore- Cochin because the same considerations will apply to those sales as to the sales already discussed, i.e., goods the title to which passed at Fort Cochin were delivered at Willingdon Island and were delivered for consumption in parts of India other than Travancore-Cochin.
-
1962 (11) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of rule 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939 questioned
Held that:- Allow this petition with costs holding the impugned rule 16(2) invalid and order the issue of a writ of mandamus to the State of Madras and the Sales Tax Authorities under the Act to refrain from enforcing any of the provisions of rule 16(2) and direct them to refund the tax illegally collected from the petitioner.
-
1962 (11) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was a sale by the assessees of sugar despatched by them to the Provincial Government of Madras in compliance with the directions issued by the Controller in exercise of authority under the Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, promulgated on February 18, 1946, by the Central Government under powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. For the purposes of legislation such as on sales tax it is only necessary to see whether there is a sale express or implied. Such a sale was not found in "forward" contracts and in respect of materials used in building contracts. But the same cannot be said of all situations. I for one would not curtail the entry any further. The entry has its meaning and within its meaning there is a plenary power. If a sale express or implied is found to exist then the tax must follow. I am of the opinion that in these transactions there was a sale of sugar for a price and the tax was payable. I would, therefore, dismiss these appeals with costs.
|
