Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing Reliable Rocks Builders And Suppliers vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 31 July, 1980

State Of Uttaranchal vs M/S. Kumaon Stone Crusher on 15 September, 2017

“5. The view taken by the Tribunal as af­ firmed by the High Court is that the goods continue to be stone and they are not com­ mercially different goods to be identified differently for the purposes of sales tax. The decision relied on by the minority view in the Tribunal in Reliable Rocks Builders & Suppliers v. State of Karnataka turned on the concept of consumption of goods for the purpose of bringing into ex­ istence new goods. In that case the Court was not concerned with an entry of the na­ ture with which we are concerned in the present case. Where the dealer had brought into existence new commercial goods by consuming the boulders to bring out small pieces of stone, it was held that such ac­ tivity attracted purchase tax. In the present case, however, stone, as such, and gitti and articles of stones are all of similar nature though by size they may be different. Even if gitti, kankar, stone ballast, etc. may all be looked upon as separate in commercial character from stone boulders offered for sale in the market, yet it cannot be presumed that En­ try 40 of the notification is intended to describe the same as not stone at all. In fact the term “stone” is wide enough to include the various forms such as gitti, kankar, stone ballast. In that view of the matter, we think that the view taken by the majority of the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court stands to reason. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the same.”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 111 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries And ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 23 January, 2003

"The view taken by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is that the goods continue to be stone and they are not commercially different goods to be identified differently for the purposes of sales-tax. The decision relied on by minority view in the Tribunal in Reliable Rocks Builders and Suppliers v. State of Karnataka (1982) 49 STC 110 turned on the concept of consumption of goods for the purpose of bringing into existence new goods. In that case the Court was not concerned with an entry of the nature with which we are concerned in the present case. Where the dealer had brought into existence new commercial goods by consuming the boulders to bring out small pieces of stone, it was held that such activity attracted purchase tax. In the present case, however, stone, as such, and gitti and articles of stones are all of similar nature though by size they may be different. Even if Gitti, Kankar, stone-ballast, etc., may all be looked upon as separate in commercial character from stone boulders offered for sale in the market, yet it cannot be presumed that entry 40 of the notification is intended to describe the same as not stone at all. In fact the term 'stone' is wide enough to include the various forms such as Gitti, Kankar, stone-ballast. In that view of the matter, we think that the view taken by the majority of the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court stands to reason. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the same."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - B Prasad - Full Document

Bheraghat Mineral Industries vs Divisional Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 10 April, 1987

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Reliable Rocks Builders and Suppliers v. State of Karnataka [1982] 49 STC 110, has held that the process of breaking boulders into jelly cannot be described as a manufacturing process.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 15 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Sri Rajeshwari Enterprises And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 2 September, 1987

(ix) Pachiappa Chettiar and Brothers v. State of Madras [1962] 13 STC 202 in which the Madras High Court held that treating of tobacco with palm jaggery water and drying it in shades and cutting into required sizes and packing in bundles for sale did not amount to manufacture of a new item of goods; and eliable Rocks Builders and Suppliers v. State of Karnataka [1982] 49 STC 110 in which this Court held that breaking of boulders and converting them into jelly did not amount to manufacture of a new article.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bangalore Wood Industries vs Asst. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes ... on 15 July, 1993

The words "or consumes otherwise" between "otherwise" and "or disposes of' in section 6(i) were inserted with effect from September 8, 1988. Earlier, there was some doubt whether goods "consumed otherwise" was covered by the then existing phraseology of section 6(i). Following the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Pio Food Packers case , a Bench of this Court held in Reliable Rocks Builders and Suppliers v. State of Karnataka [1982] 49 STC 110 that section 6(i) is attracted only when there is consumption of goods, in the manufacture of some other goods. There, this Court held that process of breaking boulders into jelly cannot be described as a manufacturing process.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Madhur Trading Co. And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 22 January, 1993

The words "or consumes otherwise" between "otherwise" and "or disposes of' in section 6(i) were inserted with effect from September 8, 1988. Earlier, there was some doubt whether goods "consumed otherwise" was covered by the then existing phraseology of section 6(i). Following the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Pio Food Packers case , a Bench of this Court held in Reliable Rocks Builders and Suppliers v. State of Karnataka [1982] 49 STC 110 that section 6(i) is attracted only when there is consumption of goods, in the manufacture of some other goods. There, this Court held that process of breaking boulders into jelly cannot be described as a manufacturing process.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next