Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa vs Orissa Small Industries Corporation on 28 February, 1987

State Of Orissa vs Ramnarayan Sitaram on 29 August, 1987

The decision in S. J. C. No. 99 of 1980 [State of Orissa v. Orissa Small Industries Corporation [1987] 67 STC 262 (Orissa)] is not in any way affected by non-consideration of the provisions of the sub-rules. The provisions in the Rules cannot override the provisions in the Act. Accordingly, the question No. 1 is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal is correct in its conclusion.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Singal Trading Co. vs State Of Orissa on 29 August, 1987

7. Mr. Agarwala relied upon another decision of this Court in S. J. C. No. 99 of 1980 decided on 28th February, 1987 (State of Orissa v. Orissa Small Industries Corporation) (unreported) [1987] 67 STC 262 where it has been held that a transfer of goods to another State which is not sale under the Central Sales Tax Act can be proved otherwise than furnishing the F form in view of the language of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. In this case, the specific language of Section 5(2)(B) is otherwise. Accordingly, the said decision is of no assistance to Mr. Agarwala.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shree Hanuman Rice Mill vs The State Of Orissa on 4 April, 1988

4. So far as the second is concerned, the matter is no longer res integra in view of the decisions reported in [1987] 67 STC 262 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Orissa Small Industries Corporation) and [1988] 68 STC 153 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Ramnarayan Sitaram). It was held that under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, form F was not conclusive proof that the inter-State transfers were otherwise than by way of sale. The assessing officer has the jurisdiction to make further enquiry as to whether the transactions covered by form F were sales, or mere transfers as claimed by the dealer. The dealer might thus prove his claim in any other manner also. Moreover, the word "shall" used in Sub-rules (5) and (7) of Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, being in a procedural statute, could not be held to be mandatory, when non-cornpliance was not to have adverse effect. Learned counsel appearing for both parties did not dispute the above proposition. Therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1