Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Agarwal And Brothers vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 29 November, 1973

The Commissioner, Trade Tax vs S/S Gaya Prasad Anil Kumar on 24 November, 2006

The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed application under Section 22 of the Act for rectification of the order dated 20.8.1991 on the ground that the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Agarwal Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. reported in 1990 STJ 454 held that the Commission Agent was not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of tax under Section 4-B of the Act. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the Appellate Authority was based on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and there was no mistake apparent on the face of record.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Annapurna Carbon Industries Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 March, 1976

is not "agricultural machinery", within the meaning of entry 9 in Schedule of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953; Agrawal Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh(1); where it was also held that a "tractor", which is "nothing but a self-propelled vehicle capable of pulling a load", or "traction" does not acquire the character of "agricultural machinery or implement" merely because when used on agricultural land it is used also to draw certain agricultural implements like a plough; The State of Mysore v. Mores (India) Ltd.(2), where it was held that a typewriter ribbon is not an essential part of a type writer so as to attract the tax under entry 18 of the second schedule to - the Mysore Sales Tax, Act, 1957, Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. v Free India Cycle Industries(3), where it was held that rexine saddle covers used also for bicycle seats are not covered by entry No. 34 introduced by Section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as modified subsequently, which read: "bicycles, tricycles, cycle rickshaws and perambulators and parts and accessaries thereof other than tyres and tubes"; The Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Society, Jabalpur v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Indore(4), where it was held that oil-engines and pumps", which are not known in the commercial world as "agricultural machinery" could not be covered by an entry meant for goods sold for agricultural purposes simply because some of them are also sold to agriculturists for agricultural purposes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 79 - M H Beg - Full Document

Phoolson Foundry Works vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 30 October, 1987

In 1965 (16) STC 860 (Aggarwal Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a tractor which is nothing but a self-propelled vehicle capable of pulling a load, did not acquire the character of "agricultural machinery or implement" merely because when used on agricultural land it "drives" certain agricultural implements;
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Golden Metal Industries on 21 June, 1974

Mr. Modi also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1969] 23 S.T.C. 306.). There the relevant notification mentioned component parts of motor vehicles in item No. 1. That item also mentioned separately articles (including rubber and other tyres and tubes and batteries) adapted for use as parts and accessories of such vehicles, not being such articles as are ordinarily also used otherwise than as such parts and accessories. In that decision the diesel engine in question which could be ordinarily used for other purposes was held not to be covered by item No. 1 because it was a component part and because with the assistance of conversion kits only such diesel engines could be used as parts of motor vehicles. That is why the Division Bench in terms pointed out that they were not concerned with the diesel engines, which were constituted or adapted already, so that they were ready for se in motor vehicles. Special conversion kits were required and there was no evidence as to what degree of conversion was necessary to make a diesel engine capable of use for driving motor vehicle. As there was complete absence of material in that connection this view was taken. The Division Bench has also taken into account the fact that the diesel engine in question could ordinarily be used for other purposes and, therefore, it would be falling in the exclusion clause so far as other articles were concerned. Therefore, that decision is on its own special facts and could never be pressed into service in this case where admittedly these metal valves are not capable of any other use except being fitted into the tube of the specified motor vehicle in entry 44A. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was obviously in error in disregarding this latter part of the entry which would specifically cover such metal value of motor tube and, therefore, the specific entry 42B of Schedule C would be attracted and there would be no question of residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. Therefore, our answer to the reference would be that the motor valves in question would attract duty under specific entry 42B of Schedule C and not under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioner-State for this reference.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Vikas Traders vs The State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 1975

In Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [[1969] 23 S.T.C. 306], the Allahabad High Court has on the entry in pari materia taken the same view that an article is a component of another when it forms a constituent part of the other and is essential for completing it. That presumes necessarily that the article as such must in its condition and functioning be capable of use in the other. That is why the diesel engine, which only with the assistance of conversion kits, could be used in motor vehicles, could not be said to be component part.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Pawansut Trading Company Through Its ... vs The Commissioner Of Trade Tax on 13 March, 2007

11. Clause (a-1) of the Act has been inserted w.e.f. 01.05.1977 by Act No. 11 of 1978. Prior to insertion of Clause (a-1),the question came up for consideration before this Court whether Commission agent, who was not holding recognition certificate under Section 4-B (2) of the Act was also entitled for the benefit of exemption under Section 4-B (1)(a) of the Act on the purchase of goods made on behalf of the manufacturer holding recognition certificate under Section 4-B (2) of the Act. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Agrawal Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1990 UPTC, 76 held that prior to 01.05.1997 before the insertion of Clause (a-1) of the Act only those dealers, who were holding recognition certificate under Section 4-B (2) of the Act were entitled for the benefit of exemption or concessional rate of tax, as the case may be. Clause (a-1) of the Act has been inserted with a view to provide the benefit even to those dealers, who are not holding a valid recognition certificate but are first purchaser of the declared goods under Section 3-D (1) of the Act on sale to a dealer holding valid recognition certificate under Sub-section (2) of Section 4-B of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document
1