Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range ... on 28 February, 1967

Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes vs The State Trading Corporation Of India ... on 8 February, 1972

12. As stated earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made reference to two decisions, one of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Nathani Brothers [1968] 21 S.T.C. 465, and the other of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1967] 20 S.T.C. 345, for the proposition that unless the movement of the goods outside the State was occasioned by reason of a contract for such sale, such a movement could not be called a movement in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Vijayalaxmi Timber Depot on 18 August, 2000

A question similar to the case at hand came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range Charge [1967] 20 STC 345. In that case the assessee, a limited company with its registered office at Calcutta and manufacturing aluminium utensils, entered into a contract of sale with the Government of India under which goods were delivered in West Bengal, the price was paid in West Bengal and the property in the goods also passed on to the Government of India in West Bengal. The goods were, however, transported from West Bengal to a place outside that State by or on behalf of the Government of India with which the assessee had nothing to do. In these circumstances the Calcutta High Court held that the transactions were not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce because a sale or purchase "occasions the movement of goods" within the meaning of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, either when the contract for such sale or purchase itself contemplates or necessarily involves the movement. In other words, the movement must occur under the contract. When the movement is not under the contract but due to reasons extraneous to the obligations under the contract, it cannot be said to be a movement in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - P K Misra - Full Document
1