D.K. Lall vs Samrat Shipping And Transport Systems ... on 14 July, 2003
(i) National Tractors Hubli v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Bangalore, AIR 1971 SC 2277.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.48 seconds)Documents citing
National Tractors, Hubli vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, ... on 15 January, 1971
N.D. Georgopoulos vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 February, 1975
30. The next authority relied upon by Mr. Kotwal was a decision of the Supreme Court in National Tractors v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore . In that case the question which fell for decision again was, who was exigible to pay the purchase tax under section 5(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with Schedule III to the said Act. The appellants in that case were dealers in iron-ore and had purchased iron-ore from mine-owners from Mysore. They sold the iron-ore to the State Trading Corporation for export. The Supreme Court held that the transaction between the appellants and the State Trading Corporation was in the course of export and the State Trading Corporation had no liability to pay the purchase tax and that, therefore, the appellants were the last purchasers in Mysore. In our opinion, this authority equally does not help Mr. Kotwal.
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 7 November, 1973
15. Reference most be made to the decision in National Tractors v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1971] 27 S.T.C. 271 (S.C.), on which the learned counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance. That case is clearly distinguishable from the facts in the instant case. There, the assessee entered into an agreement of sale with the State Trading Corporation for sale of iron-ore. Under the agreement ore was to be transported by rail from Hospet to Hubli and from there by road to Karwar port where it was to be loaded into ships for shipment to a foreign destination. All expenses from Hospet to the point where the ore was loaded into ships were to be borne by the assessee. The contract between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation was described as f. o. b, t. 95 per cent of the price was paid against the shipping documents and 5 per cent against the certificate of weight and analysis at the foreign port of discharge.
Coffee Board vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 1989
7. To counter this view the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to us a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1982] 50 STC 287, But that decision, in our opinion, is in accord with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in National Tractors' case , with regard to which the Supreme Court had struck a different note in its later decisions particularly in Murarilal Sarawagi's case .
Lakshmi Machine Works Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 December, 1980
It was held that the contract between the assessee and M.M.T.C. was different from the contract between M.M.T.C. and the foreign purchaser, and the last purchaser within the State was, therefore, the M.M.T.C. In that case the decision in the Serajuddin's case was followed and it was pointed out that the decision in National Tractors, Hubli v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore , of the Supreme Court was no longer good law.
Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 1991
In National Tractors case it was said that the purchase by the State Trading Corporation from the merchant was in the course of export by the S.T.C. to the foreign buyer and, therefore, the purchase by the merchant from the mine-owner was the last purchase in the State. The basis of the decision is that these were integrated f.o.b. contracts in the course of export.
State Of Punjab (Now Haryana) And Anr. vs New Rajasthan Mineral Syndicate on 29 April, 1975
(1) That the property in the goods, according to the agreement read with the letter dated September 2, 1957, never passed to the buyer before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India. It is stressed that the contract between the assessee and the nominee of the S.T.C. was an f. o. b. t. (free on board trim). The point sought to be made out is that the sales in question were effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India and, therefore, they had taken place "in the course of export" within the meaning of Sub-section 5(1). Reliance has been placed on this Court's decisions in National Tractors, Hubli v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore , and B. K. Wadeyar, Sales Tax Officer, IV Division, Licence Circle, Bombay v. Daulatram Rameshwarlal .
Mohd. Serajuddin Etc vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975
The decision in the National
Tractors case (supra) was on the question as to who was the
last purchaser in the State. It was not the contention of
the assessee that the sale to the Corporation was in the
course of export.
Murarilal Sarawagi Etc vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 December, 1976
In the National Tractors case (supra) it was said
that the purchase by the State Trading Corporation from the
merchant was in the course of export by the S.T.C. to the
foreign buyer and, therefore, the purchase by the merchant
from the mine-owner was the last purchase in the State. The
basis of the decision is that these were integrated F.O.B.
contracts in the course of export.
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Cauvery Spinning And Weaving Mills ... on 31 July, 1973
In National Tractors v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1971] 27 S,T.C. 271 (S.C.), a dealer purchased iron ore from mine-owners and sold it to the State Trading Corporation for export on f. o. b. basis. Under the agreement between the dealer and the corporation the ore was to be transported by rail or to be loaded into ships for transportation to foreign countries. All expenses for transportation up to the stage of loading into the ships were to be borne by the dealer. But in all the documents the ore was shown as consigned by the corporation to itself. The wagons were also arranged by the corporation. All the shipping documents including the export licence were made out in the name of the corporation. The question arose as to whether the sale by the dealer to the corporation was in the course of export. On these facts, the Supreme Court held that in f. o. b. contracts the normal presumption is that the property in the goods passes when they are put on board the ship, unless of course, special circumstances pointing to the passing of property at some other point of time are clearly made out and that though the shipping documents and the export licence stood in the name of the corporation, the property cannot be said to have passed from the dealer to the corporation before the goods were loaded in the ships and that, in any event, these circumstances are quite equivocal and never so firm as to displace the normal presumption attaching to f. o. b. contracts to the effect that the title in the goods covered by such contracts passes to the buyer only when the goods are put on board the ships. It was, therefore, held in that case that notwithstanding the fact that the goods moved from the dealer's place of business to the port and loaded into the ships as the goods of the corporation, the sale by the dealer to the corporation should be taken to be in the course of export as the property in the goods passed to the corporation only after the goods had been loaded on board the ships. The case before us is an a fortiori one in that in the shipping documents the assessee has been shown as the consignor and the goods are deliverable to its order.