Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 66 (2.89 seconds)
Documents citing Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Others(And Vice Versa) on 25 November, 1980

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Eastern Acquatic Traders on 21 September, 1983

7. The test that is required to be applied in the present case is to see whether the processing of frog legs has brought into existence a commercially different and distinct commodity. Even if the from legs have undergone some process, can they be regarded as commercially new and distinct commodity ? Here the decision of the Supreme Court in Chowgule & Co. P. Ltd. v. Union of India does not support the stand taken by the Revenue. On the other hand it supports the view taken by the Tribunal that the frog legs, even after the process, have not been converted into a commercially different commodity.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shree Mulchand Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Or Income-Tax on 31 October, 1985

After analysing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , and on other decision, the Calcutta High Court observed (at p. 394) that in view of these decisions where any commodities subjected to a process or treatment with a view to its "development or preparation for the market", as, for example, of sorting and repacking fruits and vegetables, it would amount processing of the commodity within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the aforesaid case, the Calcutta High Court held that the assessee, who carried on the business of purchasing tea of different qualities, blending the same by mixing one type with another and selling it, was entitled to be considered as an "industrial company" within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Indian Tea Packeting Industries And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 March, 1988

He then referred to the case of Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) and on a reference to the observations as made therein, submitted that processing as in this case, would not amount to manufacture. As submitted earlier, he restated further that every process no doubt would bring a change but every change will not be a case of manufacture and the test in this case would be whether on such manufacture as claimed the original tea loses its quality, character and use in the commerial market.
Calcutta High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

D.D. Shah And Brothers vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 2005

72. We may notice here that apart from the fact that decision was rendered in the particular interpretation taken by the Karnataka High Court on the combined reading of the two notifications issued under the Karnataka Sales-tax Act, it refers to Chowgule's case (supra) for supporting its conclusions while considering the question whether blending of different teas amounts to manufacture.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 39 - Cited by 2 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Om Agro Oil Pvt. Ltd. Girwai Naka Near ... vs Mp Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Com. ... on 11 February, 2025

In the aforesaid regard it is observed that the answer to this question depends upon what is the true meaning and connotation of the word "processing" while dealing the matter in regard to sec.8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of Central Sales Tax Rules, 1956 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Apex Court in Chowgule's case had went on to hold that as per the websters' Dictionary the meaning of the word "process", is subject to some special process or treatment, to subject (especially raw material) to a process of manufacture, development or preparation for the market etc., to convert into marketable Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 19-05-2025 12:20:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8598 12 WP-11988-2022 form as live stock by slaughtering, grain by milling, cotton by spinning, milk by pasteurizing fruits and vegetables by sorting and repacking. Thus, where any commodity is subjected to a process or treatment with a view to its "development or preparation for the market", it would amount to processing of the commodity. The nature and extent of processing may vary from case to case; but with each process suffered, the commodity would experience a change. Wherever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. Thus, what is necessary in order to characterise an operation as "processing" is that the commodity must, as a result of the operation, experience some change. Here, in the present case, two different compositions are blended together to produce oil of the requisite chemical and physical composition and as a result of this blending, the quantities of oil mixed together experience change in their respective compositions, because what is produced by such blending is oil of a different composition and when the chemical and physical composition of each kind of oil which goes into the blending is changed, there can be no doubt that the operation of blending would amount to 'processing'. Thus, in the very unit of the petitioner it can be said that after processing of the blended edible vegetable oil, it is packed and the said unit cannot be any way said to engaged only in repacking of the oil.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission on 22 September, 1981

12. It is clear from the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court that where a dealer carries on the activity of mining as well as manufacturing as integrated parts of his business activity, it would be difficult to make any artificial division of the operations. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that since the business of the present assessee, namely, ONGC, in the present case, of refining oil involves two activities, namely, extracting the crude oil and after purifying it selling it to the company for further refinement it cannot be said that these are two unconnected activities undertaken by the Commission and, therefore, not entitled to claim set-off of the tax paid on the purchases of the goods used in the activities of extracting the oil from the earth. The entire activity of the Commission has to be considered as an integrated and connected activity of extracting the oil and refining it and then selling to the refineries for further refinement and the produce of petroleum products by employment of sophisticated technology. As a matter of fact, the important point which we would like to emphasis is that in Indian Copper Corporation's case [1965] 16 STC 259 (SC), as well as in Chowgule & Co.'s case [1981] 47 STC 124 (SC), the stand taken by the revenue was that the manufacturing or processing activity consisted of mining the ore and taking the mined ore to the plant site for dressing and cleaning and beyond that there would be no manufacturing activity. Even this stand of the revenue was not approved and the Supreme Court has ruled that the diverse operations commencing from mining of mineral to the last stage of storing them or loading them in the ships should be treated as an integrated activity of manufacturing and processing and no artificial dichotomy would be justified on any ground. The stand which has been taken by the State Government in the present reference is slightly reverse. The stand which has been taken before us is that till the oil is extracted from the earth and taken to the point of gathering plant, there is no activity of processing or manufacturing which commences only after the process of separation and de-emulsification is over. We are of the opinion that the contention is devoid of any substance in view of the finding of fact made by the Tribunal that the entire activity of the Commission from extracting the oil till purifying it and passing over to the refineries for further refinement is a well-knit and integrated activity and, therefore, must be considered to be an activity of manufacturing. In that view of the matter, therefore, we must answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the State Government.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

S.R. Cannery vs The Commissioner, Trade Tax on 16 December, 2005

The contention of the assessee that converting boulders into gitti does not include any manufacturing process within the meaning of the Act, was accepted by the Tribunal. From the order, the aforementioned was referred to the High Court or Bombay. Following the judgment of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers, reported in 1981 UTC, 667 (SC), Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers reported in 46 STC, 63, Chowgule & Co. Pvt Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1981 UPTC, 702, M/s Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in 1986 UPTC, 1236, High Court held that the conversion of boulders into gitti did not amount to "manufacture". It is this view of the High Court that is assailed in this appeal by the Revenue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next