Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. on 12 February, 1976

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 24 February, 1976

Learned counsel have further informed us that this fact was mentioned to us at the time of hearing of the said S.T.R. No. 20 of 1972 Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. [[1977] 40 S.T.C. 60]. Had it been so mentioned, we would have certainly made a mention of it in the course of our judgment in that case. But, our judgment makes no mention of this fact, nor do we have any recollection of any such fact having been at all mentioned to us. Nevertheless, in view of this statement made by learned counsel on both sides, we propose to re-examine clause (iii) of the first proviso to the said explanation afresh from the point of view of the questions submitted to us for our determination in this reference.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L.G. Electronics (India) Ltd. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 5 January, 2007

In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. (supra) and Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1992) 87 STC 186, the term 'set off was interpreted as a measure to provide relief to the dealers to the extent of purchase tax paid when he purchased raw materials and he is again obliged to pay the sales tax when he sells goods manufactured by him out of the said raw materials. The judicial pronouncements as narrated above analysed the term 'set off', i.e., it is intended to avoid double taxation by allowing deduction of tax already paid from the amount of tax liability. The provisions made in the Rules lay down the modality of set off. It is worthwhile to mention here that D.S.T. Act and D.E.T. Act are to separate and independent legislations. While the former was legislated in 1947, the latter at a much later stage in 1999. The provision of set off has been made in the O.E.T. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., O.E.T. Rules, and not in the OS.T. Act. So, when the O.E.T. Act and Rules were framed, the lawmakers and rule-framers had taken into consideration the provisions made in the O.S.T. Act, which was an earlier statute. The principle of set off and for which amount, it would be set off, have been provided under the O.E.T. Act and Rules. The relevant provisions of Section 4 of the O.E.T. Act (since omitted by Orissa Act 2 of 2004) and Rule 18 of the O.E.T. Rules (since omitted by the Orissa Entry Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2004) were as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A K Parichha - Full Document

Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 1978

45. We may indicate that in the view which we are taking, we derive support from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. [1977] 40 STC 60. The question which there arose for consideration was similar to the one involved herein. The language of the provisions with which the court was there concerned is not completely identical with that of the provisions with which we are herein concerned; yet, by and large, their substance and object are the same. The headnote of the Reports correctly sets out the ratio and, for the sake of brevity, we may only reproduce the headnote to appreciate the core of the decision :
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Mohamedali Esmail vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 10 January, 1990

6. It is pertinent to mention that Shri Joshi had referred to the provisions of article 286-C of the Constitution (sic) for the proposition that the provisions regarding the set-off were beneficial provisions for the purpose of promoting manufacture and export and relied on the following observations of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. [1977] 40 STC 60 at page 65 :
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1