Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing N.D. Georgopoulos vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 February, 1975

Minerals And Metals Trading ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 14 January, 1986

The above are the restrictions upon imposition of sales tax by a State. A State can exercise its taxing power and levy tax on a sale or purchase of goods only if, according to the principles formulated by Section 4 of the Central Act, such sale or purchase took place inside the State. But if, on the principles formulated by Section 3 or Section 5, as the case may be, the transactions were also determined to be a sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India or the import of the goods into the territory of India, the bans imposed by Clause (1) of Article 286 would come into operation and the State could not constitutionally exercise its taxing power in respect of such sale or purchase merely because under Section 4 of the Central Act it was, a sale which had taken place inside that State. This position, however, would not alter the situs of the sale or purchase and its situs would continue to be inside the particular State as determined by the principles formulated by Section 4 of the Central Act. The pertinent thing to bear in mind is that these bans operate only for the purpose of curtailing the taxing powers of the State and not for any other purpose. See [1976] 37 STC 187 (Bom) (N.D. Georgopoulos v. State of Maharashtra).
Orissa High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Narang Hotels And Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 9 October, 2003

49. Mr. Sibal also reacted to another argument raised by Mr. Bharucha, learned counsel for the Revenue and not raised at the time when the matter was argued before the Tribunal, that the sales in question are exigible to tax by virtue of Section 4 of the CST Act since all the sales which are the subject-matter of dispute in this petition were completed within the State of Maharashtra and that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the CST Act are part of a scheme of which Section 4 is subject to Section 3. Mr. Sibal submits, if the situs of the sale under Section 4 is in a particular State and yet it is shown that the goods sold in a particular State occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another, then Section 3 would be applicable and the State in which the sale took place would have no authority to impose sales tax. Similarly, even though the situs of a sale takes place in a particular state but if it is shown that, the sale occasioned the export of such goods or that the sale was effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India, then too Section 4 and the situs of sale would be irrelevant because under Section 5, no tax would be leviable to such a transaction. This issue stands concluded by several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts. He relied upon the following judgments : State of Karnataka v. B.M. Ashraf & Co. , Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan , N.D. Georgopoulos v. State of Maharashtra [1976] 37 STC 187 (Bom), Guduthur Thimmappa & Son v. State of Andhra Pradesh , Bengal Corporation Private Ltd. v. State of Madras [19651 16 STC 62 (Mad.)
Bombay High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 9 - V C Daga - Full Document
1