Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing T.A. Kumarasamy Pathar vs The State Of Madras on 15 January, 1969

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 23 December, 1992

(Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras) that the omission to exclude certain items relating to non-taxable turnovers is of no consequence and does not affect or undermine the validity of the impugned proceedings. Consequently, applying the ratio of the above decisions, we hereby strike down rules 6-A and 6-B as illegal and unconstitutional, besides being violative of sections 3 to 6, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and consequently unenforceable.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

B.P. Automobiles And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 5 February, 1982

The definition of "total turnover" under the Madras Act, unlike the Karnataka Act, did not expressly refer to and include sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade and export. The Madras High Court read down the expression "total turnover" to mean turnover excluding such inter-State and export turnover respecting which the State Legislature had no competence to tax. It is no doubt true that, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, had the definition of "total turnover" in the Madras Act been on the lines of its Karnataka counterpart, then, consistent with the reasoning in Kumarasamy Pathar's case [1969] 23 STC 447, its constitutional validity might well be expected to have been held against.
Karnataka High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 18 - M N Venkatachaliah - Full Document

Kannan And Company vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 March, 1975

10. The learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to Rule 6, Clause (e), of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. Clause (e) of the rule states that in determining the taxable turnover the amount for which goods are sold or purchased in the course of export or import or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce would have to be deducted from the total turnover. It was argued on the basis of these provisions that inferentially, but for these exclusions, all inter-State sales would have been included in the total turnover thereby suggesting that the words "total turnover" in Section 7 included something in respect of which the legislature lacks legislative competence. Apart from the fact that this argument in no way advances the case of the petitioner on the point raised, we are also unable to accept this argument. The provisions excluding inter-State sales and export and import sales are clarificatory and have been specifically provided by way of abundant caution and we cannot interpret a provision in the Act with reference to the provisions in the Rules. Further, we have to interpret the provisions in the Act so as to make it constitutionally valid and not to include something within it so as to make it ultra vires of its powers. This court also held in T. A. Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras [1969] 23 S.T.C. 447 that the total turnover as defined in the Act has no reference to inter-State sales which are outside the scope of the Act, but has reference only to sales which are normally chargeable to tax under the Act but due to exemption are not subject to tax.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commnr.,Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd on 20 August, 2015

(Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras) that the omission to exclude certain items relating to non-taxable turnovers is of no consequence and does not affect or undermine the validity of the impugned proceedings. Consequently, applying the ratio of the above decisions, we hereby strike down rules 6-A and 6-B as illegal and unconstitutional, besides being violative of sections 3 to 6, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and consequently unenforceable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 70 - Cited by 249 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Vrutika Enterprise vs Rajkot on 8 August, 2023

(Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras) that the omission to exclude certain items relating to non-taxable turnovers is of no consequence and does not affect or undermine the validity of the impugned proceedings. Consequently, applying the ratio of the above decisions, we hereby strike down rules 6-A and 6-B as illegal and unconstitutional, besides being 17 SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 399 of 2012 & 10053 of 2015-DB violative of sections 3 to 6, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and consequently unenforceable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commnr.,Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. on 20 August, 2015

(Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras) that the omission to exclude certain items relating to non-taxable turnovers is of no consequence and does not affect or undermine the validity of the impugned proceedings. Consequently, applying the ratio of the above decisions, we hereby strike down rules 6-A and 6-B as illegal and unconstitutional, besides being violative of sections 3 to 6, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and consequently unenforceable.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Kalthia Engineering & Construction Ltd vs Bhavnagar on 23 October, 2024

(Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras) that the omission to exclude certain items relating to non-taxable turnovers is of no consequence and does not affect or undermine the validity of the impugned proceedings. Consequently, applying the ratio of the above decisions, we hereby strike down rules 6-A and 6-B as illegal and unconstitutional, besides being violative of sections 3 to 6, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and consequently unenforceable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Madras vs S. Mohammed Samiulla Sahib And Company on 26 October, 1972

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that in view of Section 10 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act it is for the assessing authority to establish that a particular transaction is taxable under the provisions of the Act Reliance is placed by the counsel on a decision of this court in T.A. Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras [1969] 23 S.T.C. 447. But we are not able to see how that decision will help him. In that case, the scope of the expression "total turnover" occurring in Section 7 came up for consideration. Having regard to the definitions of "turnover" and "sale" occurring in the Act, the expression "total turnover" was construed as not including any turnover relating to inter-State transactions, for inter-State transactions are outside the scope of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It is not possible for us to accept the above contention of the respondent, which, if accepted, would entirely defeat the purpose and object behind Section 10.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1