Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (4.47 seconds)
Documents citing Orient Paper Mills Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 24 December, 1970

Government Medical Stores Depot vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 4 February, 2003

21. Thus the constitutional validity of the explanations in that case was upheld and it was construed that for a person to be a dealer, he must carry on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods even if the Central Government or a State Government or any of their departments or offices does not carry on such business if it buys, sells, supplies or distributes goods, it would be regarded as a dealer for the purpose of levy and collection of tax. It being irrelevant whether such transaction by a Government was in the course of business.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Straw Products Limited vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 3 May, 1977

In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 Tax. L.R. 1249 (M.P.), it was held that the State Government or the forest department could not, merely by selling the forest produce grown on their land, be regarded as carrying on any business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods and, therefore, in respect of mere sales of forest produce, neither the State Government nor the forest department was a dealer within the meaning of the definition in Section 2(d) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958....
Orissa High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Vrajlal Manilal And Co. And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another on 2 April, 1986

2. As the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Legislative Bill which, when enacted became the 1971 Act, expressly states it was in view of the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on various provisions of the M.P. Sales Tax Act whereby the State stood to lose a considerable amount of revenue by way of tax and penalty, that it was proposed to amend the M.P. Sales Tax Act suitably in the light of the said judgments in order to safeguard the revenue of the State and to validate the imposition of penalty and that amongst the amendments which were being made was that the definition of "dealer" was proposed to be amended in the light of the judgment in the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, [1971] 28 S.T.C. 532, so as "to include the Central Government or a State Government selling goods not during the course of business". In this context, it is pertinent to note that for a person to be a dealer within the meaning of clause (d), he must be one who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods and the definition as originally enacted included within 114 its scope the Central Government or a State Government or any of their departments which carried on such business. This definition was retrospectively amended by the 1971 Act, and the reference to the "Central Government or a State Government or any of their departments" in sub-clause (I) of clause (d) was omitted from that sub-clause and Explanation II was added which expressly provided that "the Central Government or a State Government or any of their departments or offices which, whether or not in the course of business, buy, sell, supply or distribute goods, directly or otherwise, for cash . . . Or for other valuable consideration shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act". Merely because a particular provision in a statute is labelled as an Explanation, it does not mean that it is inserted merely with a view to explain the meaning of words contained in the section of which it forms a part. The true scope and effect of an Explanation can only be judged by its express language and not merely by the label given to it. The language of Explanation II shows that its purpose is to create a legal fiction, and that while under the main clause, for a person to be a dealer, he must carry on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, even if the Central Government or a State Government or any of their departments or offices does not carry on such business, if it buys, sells, supplies or distributes goods, it is to be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of the M.P. Sales Tax Act, that is, for the purposes of the levy and collection of tax under the M.P. Sales Tax Act. After the amendment of clause (d) by the 1971 Act, it is irrelevant for the purposes of the levy of tax under the M.P. Sales Tax Act whether the Central Government or a State Government or any of their departments or offices have bought or sold goods in the course of business. There is, therefore, no substance in the above contention and it must accordingly be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 28 - D P Madon - Full Document

Collector Of Customs vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 1993

That was an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 28 STC 532. The question was whether the State Government selling forest produce could be regarded as carrying on business to make it a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales-tax Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court answered the question in the negative and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. But subsequent to the decision of the High Court, the definition of dealer in the Act was amended with retrospective effect deeming the government as a dealer. The Supreme Court had no doubt in the matter because of the amendment, an evident from paragraph 13 of the judgment, that the fictional definition by itself was sufficient to make Government a dealer.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Board Of Revenue Etc vs A. M. Ansari Etc on 17 March, 1976

In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. it was held that the State Government or the forest department could not, merely by selling the forest produce grown on their land, be regarded as carrying on any business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods and therefore in respect of mere sales of forest produce, neither the State Government nor the forest department was a dealer within the meaning of the definition in section 2(d) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 89 - J Singh - Full Document

Gautamlal Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 1995

6. Merely because the fund is required to be deposited towards the Consolidated Fund of the State, the nature of levy cannot be termed as a tax. The distinction between cess, fee and tax was considered by this Court in M. P. No. 1298/92 (Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 1298/82 decided on 11-1-1994) decided on 11-1-1994. It is held thus :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - U Bhat - Full Document

Shree Ganesh Trading Co., Saugor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 10 April, 1972

14. However, after the said decision was given by the Division Bench of this Court, the legislature amended the definition of 'dealer' vide Act No. 13 of 1971 -- The M. P. General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971. Section 3 of the said Amendment Act emended Section 8 of the original Act and made such sales taxable. The said amendment was published in the M. P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary), dated 6-5-1971 and after that publication, the petitioner paid the requisite sales-tax. Thus, the contention of the learned Advocate General that the purported termination of the contract was valid would, in our opinion, not be tenable, as according to the law declared then, the petitioner was not liable to pay any sales-tax whatsoever, and his refusal to pay sales-tax could not be considered to be a default in the matter of Payment of instalments. It is further to be noted that the petitioner paid the requisite sales-tax sometime after the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971 (No. 13 of 1971) was passed. Therefore, the said reason given by the first respondent for terminating the contract could not be a valid and legal reason and the contract could not have been terminated in the manner done. Therefore, for the purpose of this Petition, we will 'treat the said termination to be null and void. The petitioner's liability for sales-tax could only arise after the M. P. General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act 1971', (No 13 of 1971) was passed by the State Legislature. No other violation of the terms of the agreement was pointed out by the learned Advocate General and as 'the petitioner was not given the contract for the year 1971 the question of the petitioner's failing to do the pruning etc., would not at all arise. In fact this writ petition has been rendered infructuous so far as the contract for the year 1971 is concerned. For this reason the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his relief to renewal for the year 1972 only.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. vs The Bengal Paper Mills Company Ltd. on 30 January, 1979

In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of M.P. 1971 M.P.L.J. 560, the High Court held in the context of the definition of "dealer" in the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, as it then stood, that the Government in granting leases of bamboos did not carry on any business and was not a dealer. By the time this case came up before the Supreme Court in appeal, the definition of "dealer" was amended in the State Act by Act No. 13 of 1971. This amending Act added an explanation to include within the definition of "dealer" the Central or a State Government which buys, sells, supplies or distributes goods "whether or not in the course of business". Because of this amendment, which was retrospective, the State Government became a dealer under the State Act. However, under the Central Act, as it stood at the relevant period, the State Government was not a dealer within the definition of that term, as it did not carry on business by selling annually the forest produce.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next