Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Pure Ice Cream Company on 25 February, 1975

M/S Vadilal Daiy International Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2015

This is the same entry which was subject matter of the decision of the Division Bench in Pure Ice-cream Company (supra). The Assessing Officer had accepted this claim for exemption however, the Assistant Commissioner issued a notice to the assessee as to why the assessment orders for the period in question should not be revised thereby deleting the exemption in respect of sale of Ice cream. By an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner it was held that sale of 'Ice-cream' effected by the assessee was taxable under entry 31 of schedule C of the Act. The assessee's appeal against the orders of ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2015 23:55:20 ::: Nalawade A.S. 21/26 STR-56-08 the Assistant Commissioner failed. The assessee thereafter, approached the Tribunal in appeal, the Tribunal allowed the same holding that 'Ice cream' sold by the assessee was exempted from tax under entry 14 of schedule A of the Act. Entry No.14 pertained to cooked food and non alcoholic drinks etc. as we have noted above while discussing the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Pure Ice-cream Company. The revenue contended that assessee was not entitled to obtain exemption under entry 14 because the place of business was conducted primarily for the sale of "Sweet and sweetmeats" and that 'Ice-cream' sold by the assessee was "Sweetmeats". This contention of the Revenue was repelled by the Division Bench by observing that entry 31 of schedule C makes a distinction between "Sweet and Sweetmeats".
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Wander Limited on 8 October, 1990

In the Government Memorandum No. 129579-ST/Spl./61-2 dated 9th February, 1962, certain clarifications were issued in respect of the entries as they stood at that time. The said notification refers to specific items and in respect of Horlicks, it is stated as 3 per cent single point tax under entry 24 of the First Schedule. We have also noticed that if Horlicks comes under entry 24, it has necessarily to come under entry 103(viii) as per the amended Schedule. It is now well-settled that the fact that Horlicks has been treated as a milk food for over two decades cannot be ignored altogether. Though such treatment by the Revenue will not estop them from pleading otherwise, the conduct of the Revenue shows that Horlicks is only a milk food. It is interesting to note that in Tax Case No. 1145 of 1987 relating to "Spert", the argument was that "Spert" cannot be categorised as milk food and compared with Horlicks which is a malted food made out of skimmed milk. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that case says that Horlicks is a malted milk food and does not contain any vitamin or mineral and therefore, it was being treated as coming under entry 24. We are, therefore, concerned with the factual question whether Horlicks is a milk food or not. On this aspect, the fact that Horlicks has been treated as milk food cannot be suddenly ignored unless the manner of preparation of Horlicks is itself changed and milk is not used to some extent as it was being used in the previous years. That is not the case of the Revenue. Therefore on the factual bass that Horlicks was being treated as a milk food all these years. It is not pretended that there is a change in the year 1990 is respect of the constituents of Horlicks.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 20 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Mangharam & Co. on 1 March, 1976

In Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Pure Ice Cream Company, (1975) 46 S.T.C. 18, this Bench has held that ice-cream is cooked food. Accordingly, following our decision in that case, we negative this contention of Mr. Dada. It was next submitted by Mr. Dada that the Respondent's place of business at Appollo Bunder where ice-cream was sold during the relevant periods was neither an eating house nor a restaurant nor a hotel nor a refreshment room nor a boarding establishment, Mr. Dada wished to invite our attention to the dictionary meanings of these words. In our opinion, for deciding this Reference it is wholly unnecessary to look at the dictionary to ascertain the meanings of these words. The record shows that the said place of business is a cabin where ice-cream is sold to people who come to buy it for the purpose of consumption near, at or about this cabin. There is nothing on the record to show that the customers who consumed ice-cream purchased by them were not doing so standing inside the cabin. The only argument before the Tribunal on behalf of the Department was that there was no arrangement made for the customers to sit and consume the ice-cream purchased by them. The same contention has also been taken in the Applicant's application for reference made to the Tribunal. Though normally a hotel or a restaurant or a refreshment room might have sitting arrangement for their customers to consume food and drinks purchased by them, this is not necessary and now a days we have quite a few snack bars becoming fashionable where people stand at the counter and eat. It is also not necessary that the food purchased must be consumed inside any such hotel, restaurant or eating house. The entry itself states that food and drinks should be for consumption at or outside any eating house or other establishment referred to in the said entry. Mr. Dada's argument amounts to saying that for sale of food and drinks to obtain exemption under the said entry 14, such food and drinks must be served at the place where they are eaten or intended to be eaten.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1