Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing G.R. Kulkarni vs The State on 16 January, 1957

Kher Stone Crusher vs General Manager, District Industries ... on 3 July, 1990

The comments made by the Division Bench in the case of Bheraghat Mineral Industries (printed at page 156 infra) ; [1987] 20 VKN 290 (MP), in paragraph 9, do create an impression that the Division Bench did not consider the case of G.R. Kulkarni [1957] 8 STC 294 (MP), as laying down a correct law. On perusal of all the referred cases in the decision of the case of Bheraghat Mineral Industries (printed at page 156 infra) ; [1987] 20 VKN 290 (MP), we find that the Division Bench was not correct in throwing a doubt on the correctness of the decision in the case of G.R. Kulkarni [1957] 8 STC 294 (MP). We may clarify that the single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Wasudeo [1955] 6 STC 30 (Nag), was a case of cutting of standing trees and converting them into timber of transportable size. The above single Bench decision was only referred to by the Division Bench in the case of G.R. Kulkarni [1957] 8 STC 294 (MP), but no reliance was placed on the same in paragraph 5 of the said decision, obviously because the manufacturing process under consideration in G.R. Kulkarni's case [1957] 8 STC 294 (MP), was making of metal or ballast from the stones.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Commercial Taxes Officer vs Prakash Udhyog on 14 January, 2000

38. We are not concerned with the case where the commodity in its original shape can be used in the same manner and for the same purposes as in the shape of end-product can be used nor the two products are so recognised to be same by the trade. The use for which the raw material, the large unevenly sized stones, could be placed would be entirely different in the present case than to use the end-product, viz., gitti or grits or chips can be put, as has been noticed by the division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kulkarni's case [1957] 8 STC 294 apart from the various expressions used in the Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1986.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Vijay Textile, A Partnership Firm At ... vs Union Of India on 24 January, 1979

"The learned counsel for the appellant relied G.R.Kulkarni v. The State (1957 8 S.T.C. 294) and Hiralal Jitmal v. Commisioner of Sales Tax, (1957 8 S.T.C. 325) in support of his submission that bristles were manufactured goods within the meaning of section 2(h), Explanation II(ii). But, in our opinionthe first case is distinguishable In the second case, it was held that a `person who is engaged in the work of printing and dyeing textiles purchased by him and in the business of selling or supplying the printed and dyed material is a manufacturer.' The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court maight parhaps be justified on the ground that a printed or dyed cloth is commercially a different articles from the cloth which is purchased and printed or dyed.'
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

The Collector Of Sales-Tax, Bombay vs Abdul Rehman Alladin on 30 November, 1962

10. The third case is the case reported in G. R. KulKarni v. The State, 1957-8 STC 294; (AIR 1957 Madh Pra 45). In that case it was held that the breaking of boulders into metal was "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1947. The extraction of metal from a boulder cannot be put on the same footing as the removal of a part from a car as a spare part. These decisions do not very much help us in considering the case which is before us. We have to read the provisions of the Section as a whole and having so read them consider whether in plain English language one can ever say that a person who removes a part from a car for use as a spare part could be said to have produced that part. In our view it would be straining the language used in the Section if we were to say that the respondents in this case produced any goods when they removed them from a car. In the result our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ahmedabad Silk Factory Private Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat ... on 12 November, 1964

To the same effect we find the decision in G. R. Kulkarni v. The State ([1957] 8 S.T.C. 294). There the question was whether the breaking of boulders into metal was "manufacture" within the meaning of section 2(i)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1947. Hidayatullah, C.J., delivering the judgment of the court observed that the essence of manufacture is the changing of one object into another for the purposes of making it marketable and since in the breaking of boulders into metal, there was some process, manual though it be, for the purpose of shaping the stones into another marketable commodity, there was a manufacturing process performed by the assessee within the meaning of section 2(i)(a) of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Collector Of Sales Tax, Bombay State, ... vs Abdul Rehman Alladin on 30 November, 1962

14. The third case is the case reported in VIII Sales Tax Cases, page 294 (G. R. Kulkarni v. The State). In that case it was held that the breaking of boulders into metal was "manufacture" within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1946. The extraction of metal from a boulder cannot be put on the same footing as the removal of a part from a car as a spare part. These decisions do not very much help us in considering the case which is before us. We have to read the provisions of the section as a whole and having so read them consider whether in plain English language one can ever say that a person who removed a part from a car for use as a spare part could be said to have produced that part. In our view it would be straining the language used in the section if we were to say that the respondents in this case produced any goods when they removed them from a car. In the result our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker And Anr. vs Sales Tax Commissioner on 1 November, 1962

15. Breaking boulders into gitti was held to be a process of manufacture in G.R. Kulkarni v. The State [1957] 8 S.T.C. 294. Hidayatullah, C.J., and Chaturvedi, J., held that boulders themselves are a marketable commodity and if they had been sold as such it would not have been a sale of manufactured goods, but gitti is a different marketable commodity and the conversion of boulders into gitti amounted to manufacturing. The learned Judges observed at page 296 :
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next