Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Steel Engineering Corporation on 16 December, 1980

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Madhu Chemical Works on 6 January, 1988

21. The distinction between an advertent mistake or omission and change of opinion is well-settled. In a case where a particular point has been considered on merits, and a view is taken, it would not be a case of inadvertent mistake or omission, if it is found that the view taken earlier was wrong. It would be a case of change of opinion, but if it is not so, then it would be a case of non-application of mind and certainly an action would be justified under Section 21 of the Act [see Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Steel Engineering Corporation [1981] 48 STC 432 (All.)].
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Centuary Ecka vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 1987

v. P. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 40 STC 439 of the Madras High' Court which as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pyare Lal Malholra's case AIR 1976 SC 800 overruled its earlier decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Rallis India Ltd. [1974] 34 STC 532, in Khajan Singh v. Commissioner, Sales Tax [1979] 43 STC 173, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Bombay Machinery Co. [1980] 46 STC 291 and Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Steel Engineering Corporation [1981] 48 STC 432 of the Allahabad High Court and Udata Narasimha Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1982] 51 STC 126 (AP).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 64 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Bhagwan Das Hari Das on 11 March, 1987

8. Let me now take stock of the authorities cited at the Bar. The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Steel Engineering Corporation 1981 UPTC 70. In that case there was nothing on record to show that the Sales Tax Officer, while examining the original assessment, had examined the claim of the assessee, that the disputed items were declared goods with reference to the relevant provisions of law. As the said judgment itself states that in that case there was non-application of mind by the Sales Tax Officer. In the present case before me there is application of mind by the Sales Tax Officer and thereafter the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer concerned. In paragraph 8 in the case of Steel Engineering Corporation [1981] 48 STC 432 (All.); 1981 UPTC 70 the court has specifically mentioned that in case of change of opinion, proceedings under Section 21 of the Act cannot be taken.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Govindji Jamunadas vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 23 March, 1983

11. The learned Government Advocate relied upon State of Tamil Nadu v. Syam Steel Rolling Mills P. Ltd. [1977] 40 STC 156, Sales Tax Commissioner v. Jammu Iron and Steel Syndicate [1980] 45 STC 99 and Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Steel Engineering Corporation [1981] 48 STC 432. These cases are merely illustrative as to when a commodity when subjected to certain processes ceases to retain its identity and thereby ceases to be in the same form. As earlier pointed out by us, such a question is one of fact and degree, and no useful purpose would be served by discussing these cases in detail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - J S Verma - Full Document
1