9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to insure the vehicles and properties and other goods thereby providing insurance to the customers and indemnify them against loss, damage or theft of the insured property in terms of the contract of insurance. After making the payment of the compensation amount to the claimants, in certain cases, the petitioner-company becomes the owner and entitled to possess the waste or unsalable property damaged by the risk insured against. The properties or goods, which are thus damaged or rendered unsalable are taken into custody by the petitioner-company after payment of compensation to the person concerned. These goods are then disposed of by way of auction or otherwise as salvaged material. The disposal of the said material is an essential part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... randum dated 22nd November, 1976, requiring the petitioner-company to explain why the transactions prior to the commencement of the local Act and also under the repealed Act, were not subjected to the levy of sales tax and proposed to form assessment for the years 1970-71 to 1975-76. The petitioner-company again submitted objections regarding taxability of salvage under the repealed Act and again explained the position that under the repealed Act, there was no definition of the term 'business' as has been effective under the local Act and as such the disposal of salvage cannot be subjected to tax and in support of this contention, invited the attention of respondent No. 4 to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses (c), (e) and (g) of section 2 of the Act was not maintainable at the instance of the said company. The learned single judge was of the opinion that the show cause notice issued was not without jurisdiction and as such it was for the authorities under the Act to decide the questions on merits. With these observations the petition was dismissed. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before us was that by virtue of section 4(1) of the Nationalisation Act the appellant-company became the property of the Central Government and as such on a true interpretation of article 285 of the Constitution, the assets of the company were exempt from sales tax. Section 4(1) of the Nationalisation Act is as follows "On the appointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
