Deans Sales Depot vs Entry Tax Officer-Cum-Commercial Tax ... on 11 April, 1991
The Madhya Pradesh High Court followed the ratio of the decision in (State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.82 seconds)Documents citing
State Of Orissa vs M/S. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons on 30 March, 1976
State Of West Bengal vs Nitai Mohan Saha on 22 April, 1987
21. The next case cited was 37 STC 583 (State of Orissa) v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons). This is also . There the Supreme Court held that Jeera, Dhania, Panmohuri, Methi and Postak are
"oil-seeds" within the meaning of Section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. After recording the submissions made, the Supreme Court observed as follows :
Centuary Ecka vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 1987
13. While the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Dinabandku Sahu & Sons [1969] 24 STC 233, following the decision of the Kerala High Court in Hamsa Haji v. Sales Tax Officer, Tirur [1967] 20 STC 470 rejected the "popular understanding theory" and construed Clause (vi) of Section 14 of the Central Act as a clause defining "oil-seeds" wherein the words and expressions were held to be technical terms and the same were construed accordingly and held that "oilseeds" are those seeds from which oil can be extracted for any of the purposes mentioned in the clause, the latter Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Sreedhara Shenoy [1973] 32 STC 181 (187), agreeing with its earlier Division Bench decision in State of Kerala v. Moidoo [1972] 29 STC 373 and dissenting from the decision of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu [1969] 24 STC 233 and its own decision in C.M. Hamsa Haji v. Sales Tax Officer, Tirur [1967] 20 STC 470, held that Section 14(vi) of the Central Act did not contain any definition clause and should be construed by applying the "common parlance theory" and it was held that in common parlance, coriander and "methi" were not oil-seeds in this Section 14(vi) of the Central Act and did not agree with the technical construction placed by the Orissa High Court and by applying "common parlance theory" held these goods as oil-seeds.
Appolo Tubes Limited vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 1986
9. The category of goods called galvanised iron pipes (for short G. I. pipe) have acquired a different commercial quality as a result of the process of galvanisation. The enumeration of sub-items (vi) and (xi) would show that galvanised sheets and black sheets are two different commodities just as welded steel tubes and seamless steel tubes. Therefore, in the absence of a specified inclusion in category (xi) galvanised iron pipes cannot be categorised as a commercial commodity satisfying the identity of steel tubes. G.I. pipes have also been treated as a specified category by including in the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The legislature has thus declared steel tubes mentioned in item 3(ii)(k) as not the same as G.I. pipes, or in other words, G.I. pipe as not falling within the category of steel tubes. The clarification by the Government notification referred to by learned counsel for the assessee has no force of law. The decision in State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons [1976] 37 STC 683 (SC) also does not advance the assessee's case. What the Supreme Court said in that case is that the Ministry of Finance is intimately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Central Act but is also familiar with the nature and quality of the commodities as also their use from time to time and, therefore, if such an authority issued a notification including certain commodities under the head of "oil-seeds", as defined under the Central Act, there is nothing wrong in preferring such an opinion as good evidence, while stating that such notification has no statutory force and as such is not binding on the Sales Tax Officer. Merely because there had been an attempt to enlarge the scope of the definition by such clarification which is only advisory it cannot have the effect of including the item in the Schedule. The advice by the Directorate can at best be considered as a material for drawing a conclusion regarding the nature of the commodity. But when the legislature has understood and has provided for the same as different from the items specified in the Second Schedule the statutory provision has to prevail over the clarification for guidance. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal and the lower authority, therefore, appears to be correct and calls for no interference.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nitro Phosphetic Fertilizer. on 9 May, 1988
What is the true nature and effect of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes fell to be considered in the case of State of Orissa v. Dinabandha Sahu and Sons, AIR 1976 SC 1561, 1562; [1976] 37 STC 583. In that case, arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, the question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court was as follows :
Shahnaz Ayurvedics vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 29 January, 2004
67. The instructions issued by the department are binding on the authorities for the reason that the issuing a circular/instruction is intimately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purposes of the provisions of the Act but also familiar with the nature and qualities of the commodities and also their use from time to time, therefore, such notifications/circulars/executive instructions in fiscal statutes are binding. Apart from the fact that circulars of the Board are binding on the Tax Department, they are in the nature of contemporanea expositio furnishing legitimate aid the construction to the relevant provisions. More so, it is necessary to issue such circulars to give effect to internal complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements. [Vide State of Orissa v. Deenabandhu Sahu and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1561; K.P. Vergese v. I.T.O. and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1922; Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1806; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vasudeo V. Dempo, [1996 (88) E.L.T. 638 (S.C.)
Moriroku Ut India Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 6 April, 2007
6. Generally, extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not exercised unless petitioner exhausts the statutory remedies. Thus, first it is required to examine as to whether petition can be entertained or petitioner has to be asked to show cause and plead his case before the notice issuing authority. There is no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the circular issued by the higher authorities is binding upon the assessing authority. The instructions issued by the department are binding on the authorities for the reason that issuing a circular/instruction is intimately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purposes of the provisions of the Act but also familiar with the nature and qualities of the commodity and also its use from time to time. Therefore, such notifications/circulars/executive instructions in fiscal statutes are binding. Apart from the fact that circulars of the Board are binding on the tax department, they are in the nature of contemporanea expositio furnishing legitimate aid in the construction of the relevant provisions. More so, it is necessary to issue such circulars to give effect to internal complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements. [Vide State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons , K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer , Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Vasudeo V. Dempo , Collector of Central Excise v. Jayant Dalai (Pvt.) Ltd. , Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer , Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise , Poulose & Mathen v. CCE , British Machinery Supplies Co. v. Union of India , Collector of Central Excise v. Usha Martin Industries and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Pandit D. P. Sharma .
Smt. Shahnaz Hussain Wife Of Late Shri ... vs State Of U.P. And Union Of India (Uoi) ... on 20 August, 2007
67. The instructions issued by the department are binding on the authorities for the reason that the issuing a circular/instruction is intimately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purposes of the provisions of the Act but also familiar with the nature and qualities of the commodities and also their use from time to time, therefore, such notifications/circulars/executive instructions in fiscal statutes are binding. Apart from the fact that circulars of the Board are binding on the tax department, they are in the nature of contemporanea expositing furnishing legitimate aid the construction to the relevant provisions. More so, it is necessary to issue such circulars to give effect to internal complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements. Vide State of Orissa v. Deenabandhu Sahu and Ors. ; K.P. Vergese v. I.T.O. and Ors. ; Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT and Ors. ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vasudeo v. Dempo 1993 Supp (1) SCC 612; CCE v. Jagat Dalal (P) Ltd. ; Bengal Iron Corporation and Anr. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. ; Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE ; Poulose & Mathan v. CCE ; British Machinery Supplies Co. v. Union of India and Ors. ; and CCE v. Usha Martin Industries ; and Pandit D.P. Sharma (supra).
Netai Mohan Saha vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 23 September, 1981
14. My attention was next drawn by Mr. Chakraborty to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons reported in AIR 1976 SC 1561. In that decision it was held that dhania (coriander seed), jeera (cummin seed), panmohuri, postak (poppy seed) and methi (fenugreek) are oil-seeds falling within Section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. I do not see how this decision is of any assistance in the present case.
Sagar Tiles Co. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 12 December, 1991
In support of his contention Mr. Pathak has quoted the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Atul Glass Industries (P.)