Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (2.79 seconds)
Documents citing Gannon Dunkerley And Co. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 28 February, 1994

The State Of Tamilnadu vs Tvl.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd on 16 April, 2012

In the decision reported in 88 STC 204 (Tvl.Gannon Dunkerly and Co. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) while considering the 46th Amendment, the Supreme Court pointed out that the State Legislature is not competent and cannot frame its law as to convert an outside sale or a sale in the course of import or export into a sale inside the State and whether the sale is an outside sale or inside sale or is a sale in the course of interstate sale or in the course of import or export would have to be determined in accordance with the principles in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Thus, whether one treats the contract as divisible one or indivisible one, the character of the sale being one of inter-state sale, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the Revenue. In a contract of this nature, we do not find even the theory of accretion would be of any assistance, given the fact that even the charging provision under Section 3B was not available during the relevant assessment years, viz., 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Escotal Mobile Communications Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 February, 2002

20. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) contends that the definition of the expression "sale" has undergone tremendous transformation by the insertion of Explanation (3B) by Act No. 17 of 1984 with effect from July 1, 1984. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerly v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204 This reference appears to be to State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 353 (SC).--Ed. ; (1993) 1 SCC 364, held that in a works contract, the transfer of property being negligible as the intention is to get a service from the contracting party, no sales tax would be payable. There were amendments made both to the Constitution and in the Sales Tax Acts in the different States. Clause (29A) was added in Article 466 of the Constitution to define the expression "tax on the sale or purchase of goods" so as to include, inter alia, by Sub-clause (d) a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose whether or not for a specified period for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Learned counsel contends that as a result of this new definition and the inclusion of Explanation (3B) to Section 2(xxi) of the KGST Act, a transfer of a right to use any goods for any purpose, whether or not for specified purpose, for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration, is now deemed to be a "sale" under the KGST Act. After all, what is the nature of the transaction involved? Even if the contention of the petitioners that the SIM card, by itself, has no value is accepted, the SIM card definitely represents the right to use the service of the cellular telephone service provider for a specified period upon payment of valuable consideration. It is urged that, the transfer of such an intangible right is also a sale within the meaning of Section 2(xxi) read with explanation (3B) of the KGST Act and exigible to sales tax.
Kerala High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 19 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 13 June, 2008

3. Besides challenging the re-assessment order dated 5/5/2006 for the period, 1999-2000, the petitioner also challenged the vires of Rule 13A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 as amended by notification dated 01.2.2000 and also Section 21(1)(a)(1) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 on the ground, inter alia, that such provisions are unworkable and ultra vires in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley v. State of Rajasthan 1988 STC 204 as well as the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 134 STC 354.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 21 February, 2005

"(a) You have filed wrong returns & the assessment has been framed wrongly by taking only the cost price of the material used in the works contract for the purpose of assessment. The returns & the assessment should have been framed accordingly to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cannon Dunkerley & Company and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan etc., (C.A. No. 4861-4864 of 1992) reported in (1993)88 S.T.C. 204 (S.C.). As per this judgment the value of the goods involved in the works contract will have to be determined by taking into account the value of the entire works contract and deducting therefrom the charges towards labour and service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 13 - V Mittal - Full Document

Media Communications vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 December, 1996

43. The second issue is whether the prescription of percentages for different types of contracts for ascertaining the amount of the value of the goods is arbitrary or unreasonable. The learned counsel laid particular emphasis on the last item where thirty per cent is prescribed for all contracts. According to him, this percentage was arbitrary and has no nexus with the actual amount of labour involved in any particular contract. We are not impressed with this argument because the question of prescribing the percentage will arise only where the value of the goods supplied is not ascertainable from the accounts of the dealer. Even if there was an indivisible lump sum contract, the purchase accounts of the assessee with details of the goods used or supplied in the execution of the works contract, would eliminate the need for any estimate. It is only in a situation where the assessee does not or is unable to prove the actual value of the goods supplied or used in the execution of the contract that an estimate is required. The supreme Court had already held in Gannon Dunkerley v. State of Rajasthan that in such a situation, the Legislature may prescribe a formula of deduction of cost of labour and services on the basis of a percentage of value of the works contract, but while doing so, it has to be ensured that the amount deductible under such formula does not differ appreciably from the expenses for labour and services that would be incurred in the normal circumstances in respect of that particular type of works contract.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 52 - Cited by 6 - T N Rangarajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next