Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (0.05 seconds)
Documents citing Chander Bhan Gosain vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 5 April, 1963

Sabarmati Reti Udyog Kamdar Sahakari ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat ... on 9 December, 1970

In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhan Gosain's case ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 766 (S.C.)) is clearly distinguishable on facts. The contract in that case, though prima facie worded as regards the relevant clauses in similar fashion as the contract in the instant case, is in fact cast in a different mould and it would be difficult to hold in the light of the special features and characteristics of the contract with which we are concerned that the decision of the Supreme Court in that case would completely govern the facts of this case. We have already held above that having regard to the special features of the contract in the present case, the property in the earth had not passed to the assessee and as such the first and most important feature which was present in the contract with which the Supreme Court was concerned, is absent in the present case. We have, while discussing that point earlier, indicated as to why we are taking the view that the property in the earth excavated from the land placed at the disposal of the assessee did not pass to the assessee.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

C. Krishnaswami Rao vs The State Of Madras on 15 September, 1967

At the further stage before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee claimed exemption of the entire turnover on the ground that there was no sale of goods involved, that only a contract for the manufacture and supply of bricks was entered into between himself and the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. It was established that for the previous assessment year 1958-59, a similar claim had been examined and dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee. That circumstance was brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the hearing of the appeal leading to this revision petition. While the Tribunal did not dispute that the agreement between the assessee and the Neyveli Lignite Corporation for this assessment year was governed by the same contract entered into in the previous year, which contract was for a period of 3 years, it thought that by reason of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 S.T.C. 766 a different view bad necessarily to be taken and that the specific terms in the contract relied upon by the assessee did not serve to distinguish his case from the reported decision. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the agreement was not in the nature of a works contract but that the supplies of goods thereunder, could be regarded only as sales. The alternative contention that relief should be given at least to the extent of transport charges was also rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M.G. Bros. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, ... on 2 July, 1968

To the question whether the body had to be delivered to the person for whom it was built as a composite unit distinct from the underframe on which it was constructed, the Supreme Court addressed itself, for the reason that was explained by it in Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa , the question to be examined in a case like the present one is whether the intention of the parties in making the contract was that a chattel should be produced and transferred as a chattel for consideration. So it was that the Supreme Court investigated the question whether the intention of the parties was that a railway coach had to be fitted on the underframe supplied, to be sold to the railway administration as such, for a consideration.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Venkateshwara Rao And Co. vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 20 January, 2000

In Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 STC 766, the land was given free which was considered as transfer of property in earth to the assessee and the price thereof was considered to have been adjusted while quoting the rate of bricks to be supplied, Supply of bricks was considered as sale and it was observed that the intention of the parties in making the contract is that the chattels should be produced and transferred as chattels for a consideration which was liable to tax. The essence of the contract was considered to be delivery of the bricks and the contract was for transfer of chattel qua chattel. Reference was made to the Benjamin on Sales (8th edition), page 161 and Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition), volume 34, page 6.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Ponnuswamy Udayar vs The Government Of Madras on 16 October, 1967

Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 S.T.C. 766 has no application. There, clearly the Supreme Court held that the earth, out of which the bricks were to be made and supplied, was given to the assessee free of cost, which meant that there was transfer of property in the earth to the assessee. That is not the case here. It cannot be said, having regard to the terms of the contracts, that the property in the metal quarried by the assessee passed to him at any stage. The transactions were, therefore, purely of work and labour.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Decd. Chimanlal @ Chimanji Fulaji ... vs Trishulam Co- Operative Housing ... on 27 April, 2021

"14. Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable ( sic ), the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not. The existence of an adequate or suitable alternative remedy available to a litigant is merely a factor which a court entertaining an application under Article 226 will consider for exercising the discretion to issue a writ under Article 226 5 . But the existence of such remedy does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed. If, however, a party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226, it would not be appropriate for the court to entertain the writ petition. The rule is based on public policy but the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another court. But this Court has also held in Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa 6 that even when an alternative remedy has been availed of by a party but not pursued that the party could prosecute proceedings under Article 226 for the same relief. This Court has also held that when a party has already moved the High Court under Article 226 and failed to obtain relief and then moved an application under Article 32 before this Court for the same relief, normally the Court will not entertain the application under Article 32. But where in the parallel jurisdiction, the order is not a speaking one or the matter has been disposed of on some other ground, this Court has, in a suitable case, entertained the application under Article 32 7 . Instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy had been availed of, the Court may call upon the party to elect whether it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the application under Article 226 8. Therefore, the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 14 04:06:44 IST 2022 C/AO/67/2020 JUDGMENT fact the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Joshi - Full Document

Under Armour, Inc vs Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. on 20 April, 2023

But this Court has also held in Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa37 that even when an alternative remedy has been availed of by a party but not pursued that the party could prosecute proceedings under Article 226 for the same relief. This Court has also held that when a party has already moved the High Court under Article 226 and failed to obtain relief and then moved an application under Article 32 before this Court for the same relief, normally the Court will not entertain the application under Article 32.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 3 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next