Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (4.44 seconds)
Documents citing Carl Still G. M. B. H. & Another vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 19 April, 1961

Major Subhash Chandra Sarkar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 March, 1971

In the first place, it is well-settled that where proceedings are taken before a Tribunal under a provision of law, which is ultra vires it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court under Article 226 for issuing appropriate writs for quashing them on the ground that they are incompetent, without his being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course (See the decisions of This Court in Carl Still G.M.B.H. v. State of Bihar and Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar. In the second place, the doctrine has no application in a case where the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - G L Oza - Full Document

Mckenzies Limited vs The State Of Bombay on 20 March, 1962

11. Another case to which reference has been made by Mr. Donde is Carl Still G.m.b.H. and Another v. State of Bihar and Other ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 449). The contract in this case was for setting up a complete coke oven battery ready for production as well as by-products plants at Sindri in the State of Bihar and to erect and construct buildings, plants and machineries and deliver and supply accessories and articles and render services described in the schedule for an all-inclusive price. The Sales Tax Authorities sought to impose sales tax on the materials supplied in the execution of the contract on the ground that such supply was a sale. It was held that a contract in the said case was one and indivisible for the construction of specified works for a lump sum and not a contract of sale of materials; as such the Sales Tax Authorities had no right to impose a tax on the materials supplied in the execution of that contract. It was found on the terms of the contract in that particular case that the contract was for the construction of specified works for a lump sum and the supply of materials etc. was incidental to the said contract of construction and not as a separate and distinct contract for the sale of goods. The case, however, does not lend any support for the proposition that any contract in which construction of an article is involved becomes thereby a works contract, and although the property in the article constructed is intended to pass on its completion it does not amount to a sale of the finished article but is still a works contract.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Variety Body Builders vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat on 9 November, 1970

A view similar to this is taken by the Supreme Court in another case of Carl Still G.m.b.H. and Another v. State of Bihar and Others ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 449 (S.C.)) wherein a contract to set up a complete coke oven battery ready for production and to erect buildings, plants and machineries, was held to be an entire and independent contract for construction of specified works for a lump sum and not a contract of sale of materials as such.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Haji Abdul Majid And Sons on 18 February, 1963

The learned counsel for the assessee also strongly relied upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 S.T.C. 353 and Carl Still G. m. b. H. and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1961] 12 S.T.C. 449. In neither of these two cases the question involved in the present case fell for decision before the Supreme Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Kays Construction Company vs The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax And Anr. on 15 December, 1961

5. It is argued on behalf of the State that the alternative remedy by way of a revision to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax was open to the petitioner in this case. This point, however, is met by a very recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Carl Still G. m. b. H. v. State of Bihar [1961] 12 S.T.C. 449, in a similar matter. Accordingly there is no force in this objection.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Shivram Poddar vs Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle Ii, ... on 11 January, 1962

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also raised the point that as the Income-tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment of tax and for obtaining relief in the case of an improper order passed by the income-tax authorities a person aggrieved cannot be permitted to abandon resort to that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under article article 226 of the Constitution. In other words his argument is that the alternative remedy provided by the Income-tax Act bars resort to article 226 of the Constitution. Reference was made by the counsel for the parties to the cases of C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam; Carl Still G. m. b. H. v. State of Bihar and Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, and to the cases of Calcutta Discount Co. v. Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, and Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India. But I do not think it is necessary to deal with these cases at length or to express any opinion on this point.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bidyut Kumar Sett And Anr. vs Satyesh Chandra Bagchi And Anr. on 20 April, 1978

6. Mr. Debesh Chandra Mukherji, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, has submitted that in the case of a company whether it be a public limited company or a private limited company, even a shareholder shall be deemed to be the owner or occupier of the factory within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Act. Mr. Mukherji has also relied on a decision of a Single Bench of this court in the case of B. M. Chatteyji v. State oj West Bengal , wherein it was held that a director of a limited company was the owner within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Act and if there were several persons in the position of directors, all of them would be liable for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next