Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.49 seconds)
Documents citing Tata Engineering And Locomotive ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 27 June, 1994

L.G. Balakrishnan Brothers Ltd. And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 6 June, 2000

21. Thus, in the present case also, though specifications have been made regarding the nature of chassis, bus body, superstructure, etc. the foreign order really contemplated only sale and supply of buses and it was one indivisible contract for sale and supply of complete buses. Just because specifications have been given regarding chassis and bus body including the source of supply, it cannot be construed that the foreign order contemplated two constituents, namely, chassis and body. It is also relevant to note that form 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 contemplates free of tax in respect of goods purchased for resale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India. Under the Central Act, for claim of exemption under Section 5(3), form H contemplates purchase of goods for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order of the foreign buyer or in relation to such export. Thus, the purchase contemplated in form H is also similar to the resale considered in form 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules. Therefore, the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in [1995] 98 STC 330 (Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v, State of Maharashtra) is quite relevant to the present case.
State Taxation Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 June, 1997

The assessee has contended that the assessing authority wrongly and arbitrarily determined the quantum of additional tax under section 15-A(1) without deducting the set-off under rule 41E. The additional tax under section 15-A(1) is payable on the net amount of tax payable by the dealer. The point raised by the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1992] 85 STC 507. It has been held by the Division Bench that additional tax under section 15-A(1) of the Act will be payable on the net amount of tax payable by the dealer, after adjustment of set-off, drawbacks, etc., available to the dealer under any of the provisions of the Acts and the Rules, and the department was bound to determine the liability of additional duty accordingly. In that view of the matter, point (c) is answered in favour of the assessee.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A P Shah - Full Document

Automotive Coaches And Components Ltd. ... vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors. on 28 April, 2003

On further discussion, it was held that the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1995] 98 STC 330 is relevant to the case on hand and further this Special Tribunal disagreed with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. in STRP Nos. 4 of 1997 and 5 of 1998 dated February 8, 2000. In respect of the alternative plea of exemption, as it has been granted in the case of Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai in G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue, dated January 17, 1972, T.C.R. No. 1997 of 1997 was partly allowed and the appeal in T.C.A. No. 1841 of 1997 filed by the assessee was dismissed and also T.C.R. No. 2169 of 1997 filed by the Revenue. In T.C.R. No. 1997 of 1997 filed by M/s. L.G. Balakrishnan Brothers questioning the tax, this Special Tribunal restored the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner levying tax on a turnover of Rs. 79,79,925 at 15 per cent and Rs. 33,33,498 at 8 per cent and levy of penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) alone was deleted. Now, the petitioners, after filing the petitions before the Secretary to Government, have filed these seven original petitions challenging the order passed by the learned Secretary to Government and for the very same prayers.
State Taxation Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2000

26. Much reliance is placed on the decision given in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1995] 98 STC 330 (Bom) where it was contended that there is no resale of the bus bodies which have been purchased against declaration form No. 14. It was held that the commodity sold is different and therefore there is a non-compliance of conditions of form No. 14, This view was taken because the purchase against form No. 14 was of the bus bodies but what was sold was "the complete bus".
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2000

26. Much reliance is placed on the decision given in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1995] 98 STC 330 (Bom) where it was contended that there is no resale of the bus bodies which have been purchased against declaration form No. 14. It was held that the commodity sold is different and therefore there is a non-compliance of conditions of form No. 14, This view was taken because the purchase against form No. 14 was of the bus bodies but what was sold was "the complete bus".
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Boc India Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 5 March, 2009

23. We do not know what are the manufacturing processes involved and what role oxygen gas has to play in the matter of manufacturing of steel. It is also not possible for us to base our decision solely on the basis of a diagram contained in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Whether oxygen gas can be considered to be a raw material is essentially a question of fact. Evidence is required to be adduced. Such evidence although may be in possession of TISCO. In the event, such a question is raised by the assessee, namely, BOC, the Assessing Authority must go therein. For the purpose of claiming exemption from payment of tax and/or special rate of tax applicable to a particular gas or commodity or goods, the assessee itself must bring on record sufficient materials to show that it comes within the purview of the 22 notification. Both in M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd (supra) and Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited [supra], the question as to whether sodium sulphate and/or batteries, tyres, tubes were raw materials or not could be determined by this Court as such a question had been raised by the Assessing Authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1