Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Patnaik & Company vs State Of Orissa on 19 January, 1965

Variety Body Builders vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat on 9 November, 1970

Shri Shah pointed out to us that so far as the case under our consideration is concerned, it was the assessee who was the owner of the body which was built with the help of his own materials and labour and since the property in the form of coaches eventually passed to the railway administration on payment of the agreed amount of Rs. 19,141 per unit, it should be held, on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Patnaik's case ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 364 (S.C.)), that the contract between the parties, before us, was a contract for sale of goods qua goods and not a contract for work. We find that it cannot be disputed that in both the cases which are relied upon by Shri Shah, the contracts were found to be contracts for selling goods and it is also not possible to dispute that the main aspect, which has weighed with the majority of the learned Judges, who have decided this case, is that property in the goods passed from the assessee to the State only at the end of the execution of the work undertaken by the assessee and on payment of the consideration of the amount, as stipulated in the contract.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Pothula Subba Rao vs The State Of A.P. on 31 December, 1970

In this judgment, the Supreme Court also referred to its decision in Patnaik and Co. v. State of Orissa [1965] 16 S.T.C. 364 (S.C.), delivered with regard to the case of contracts for building motor bodies and held that the facts are different in both the cases. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court has taken a different view of the matter in this case so far as contracts for building motor bodies are concerned.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Boc India Limited vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And ... on 18 April, 2006

28. Patnaik and Co. [1965] 16 STC 364 has been followed by the Supreme Court in several decisions rendered thereafter. Relying upon the said decision of the Patnaik and Co. [1965] 16 STC 364 (SC) several High Courts have also held that the contract for constructing body of bus on the chassis supplied by the person placing the order constitutes sale of goods and not works contract.
State Taxation Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Aparajitha Rubbers (P) Ltd. on 8 August, 1990

16. Further, in State of Gujarat v. Kailash Engineering Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 13, the Supreme Court distinguished its own earlier decision in Patnaik and Company v. State of Orissa [1965] 16 STC 364 and held that, in a case of contract for construction of coaches on chassis supplied by the Railway, the terms of the contract led to the only inference that the respondent therein was not the owner of the ready coach bodies, that the property in those bodies vested in the Railway even during the process of the construction and that hence the contract was only a works contract for galvanisation of fabricated steel work with contractor's own zinc, the use of zinc being only necessary to the execution of galvanising work (sic).
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs The Central India Machinery ... on 6 April, 1977

42. The case before us is more in line with the decision of this Court In Patnaik and Co. v. State of Orissa . The appellants therein had entered into an agreement with the State of Orissa for the construction of bus bodies on the chassis supplied by the Governor. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the appellants were responsible for the safe custody of the chassis from the date of their receipt from the Governor till their delivery and they had to insure their premises against fire, theft, etc., at their own cost. The appellants had to construct the bus bodies in the most substantial and workmanlike manner, both as regards materials and otherwise in every respect in strict accordance with the specifications. They had to guarantee the durability of the body for two years from the date of delivery. It was also provided that all works under the contract should be open to inspection by the Controller or officers authorised by him and such officers had the right to stop any work which had been executed badly or with materials of inferior quality, and on receipt of a written order the appellants had to dismantle or replace such defective work or material at their own cost. The builders were entitled to 50 per cent of the cost of the body building at the time of delivery and the rest one month thereafter. The question before the Constitution Bench of this Court was whether, on these facts, the contract was one for work or a contract for sale of goods. This Court held (by majority) that the contract as a whole was a contract for sale of goods and, therefore, the appellants were liable to sales tax on the amounts received from the State of Orissa for the construction of the bus bodies. In reaching at this conclusion the Court paid due regard to the fact that under that contract the property in the bus body did not pass to the Government till the chassis with the bus body was delivered at the destination to be named by the Controller. Till the delivery was made the bus body remained the property of the builder. This clinching circumstance prominently figures in Standard Condition 15 in the instant case also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

M/S. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 6 May, 2014

18. Patnaik & Co. (supra) related to a case of construction of bus bodies on a chassis and the builder of the bus bodies had taken the responsibility to bear the loss, if any, till the delivery of the chassis with bus bodies. The question arose whether the assessee was liable to pay sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 on the whole amount or entitled to deduction from its gross turnover in respect of the amount received from the State Government for building bodies on the chassis supplied by the Government. The majority decision observed that it was a case of fixing chattel on chattel and there was no authority for the proposition that when a chattel was fixed on another chattel, there was no sale of goods.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 90 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next