Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.56 seconds)
Documents citing Fitwell Engineers vs Financial Commissioner, Delhi ... on 26 April, 1974

Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 August, 1998

The Delhi High Court in Fitwell Engineers v. Finance Commissioner, Delhi Administration (1975) 35 STC 66, upheld the view taken by the taxing authorities. In appeal before the Supreme Court the contention of the Revenue was that though the words "inside the Union Territory of Delhi" were not to be found in Section 5(2)(a)(ii). they must be read in that provision as a matter of construction. According to the Revenue if the provision was not so constructed the Union Territory of Delhi would lose tax altogether where goods were re-sold or used in manufacture outside Delhi. Several other reasons were also assigned in support of the contention. The decision began considering the contention of the Revenue by making the following observation on the principle of statutory interpretation:
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - A Alam - Full Document

N.D. Georgopoulos vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 February, 1975

33. We are not concerned with this decision in so far as it turns on the construction of the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as applied to Delhi, and it is not necessary, therefore, to examine the said decision from this point of view. With great respect to the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court who decided the said case, we are, however, unable to subscribe to the view that wherever a single point sales tax levy is in force in a State, at least one sale of the same goods must be taxed within the State. As mentioned earlier, there is no obligation on a State to introduce sales tax into its fiscal structure; but if a State does so, it is open to the state Legislature to select certain classes of transactions of sale or purchase and tax them and either exclude the remaining transactions or give exemptions in respect thereof. As pointed out above, by the scheme of licensing and authorisation introduced by sections 8 and 9 of the Bombay Act, there can be a series of transactions terminating either in a sale taking place in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in which no sales tax or purchase tax is imposed at any stage.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Polestar Electronic(P) Ltd vs Addl. Commissioner, Sales Tax Delhi on 20 February, 1978

(ii) was attracted and the price of the goods purchased was liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessees. The question which arises for determination in the appeals is whether this view'taken by the Taxing Authorities and approved by the High Court of Delhi in Fitwell Engineers' case is correct and can be sustained. We may first examine the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Act in so far as it bears on the present controversy. Every dealer, whose gross turnover exceeds the taxable quantum is liable to pay tax on sales effected by him after a specified date and while he is liable to pay tax, he cannot carry on business unless he gets himself registered and possesses a registration certificate. Though his liability to tax is deter-mined by reference to his gross turnover, whether it exceeds the taxable quantum or not, tax is leviable on him only in respect of his taxable turnover. *The concept of taxable turnover is different from that of gross turnover and to compute taxable turnover of a dealer, certain deductions are required to be made from his gross turnover and one of the deductions is that set out in section 5 (2) (-a) (ii). What is Permitted to be deducted under this provision is turnover on sales by a registered dealer of goods of the class or classes specified in his certificate of registration as being intended for resale by him or for use by him as raw-materials in the manufacture of goods for sale. This deduction is allowed with reference to the intended end-use of the goods, namely, that they will be resold or they will be used as raw materials in the manu- facture of goods for sale, according as they are purchased for one purpose or the other. But in view of the innumerable transactions that May be entered into by the dealers, it would be well nigh impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether the the goods were purchased as being intended for resale or for use as raw-materials in the manufacture of goods for sale and hence the the First Proviso was enacted qualifying the substantive provision by saying that the turnover the sale covered by the terms of section 5 (2) (a) (ii). would be 108 deductible only if "a declaration duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold and containing the prescribed particulars on a prescribed form- is furnished" by the selling dealer. The result is that a dealer cannot get deduction in respect of the turnover of his sales falling within section 5 (2) (a) (ii) unless he furnishes a declaration containing the prescribed particulars on the prescribed form duly filled in and signed by the purchasing dealer. The form of declaration prescribed under Rule 26 as it stood upto 29th March, 1973 contained an expression of intention of the purchasing dealer to resell the goods purchased or to use them as raw- materials in the manufacture of goods for sale. Such declaration given by the purchasing dealer to the dealer selling the goods would afford evidence that the goods were purchased by the purchasing dealer "as being intended for resale by him or for use by him as raw-materials in the manufacture of goods for sale". The dealer selling the goods would be granted deduction in respect of the sales on the strength of such declaration given by the purchasing dealer. The requirement of such declaration as condition of deduction is clearly intended to prevent fraud and promote administrative efficiency.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 394 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax And Ors on 26 April, 1985

(a) of sub-s. (2) of s.5 implies the single point at which the turnover of goods may be taxed. That argument from favour with the High Court, and it held the single point in a series of sales to be the sale made by the last registered dealer among successive dealers when he sold the goods to an unregistered dealer or a consumer In this connection, the High Court relied on the construction placed by it on sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of 991 s.5 in Fitwell Engineers v. Financial Commissioner, Delhi Administration, Delhi, and Another' (1) In that case, the High Court had held that it was for the purpose of taxing the goods at least at one point that sub-cl. (ii) of c1. (a) of sub-s. (2) of s.5 of the State Act had been enacted, that there would be a taxable sale when the registered dealer sold the goods to an unregistered dealer or to a consumer, and that in order that such resale by the registered dealer should attract tax the resale to an unregistered dealer or to a consumer had to be effected in Delhi, because if the resale was effected outside the Union Territory of Delhi the Union Territory of Delhi would have no legislative competence to tax the resale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 120 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Sawhney Rubber Industries vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, New Delhi on 8 December, 1980

In the Fitwell Engineers' case ([1975] 35 S.T.C. 66.), this Court held that for the purposes of section 5(2)(a)(ii) and the second proviso thereto resale of the goods purchased was confined to resale in Delhi; so also the use of the goods purchased as raw materials in the manufacture of goods and sales of manufactured goods were required to be inside Delhi and therefore if the assessed resold the goods outside Delhi or used them as raw materials in manufacture outside Delhi even if the manufacture was inside or sold the goods manufactured outside Delhi, there was utilisation of the goods by the assessed for a purpose other than for which they were purchased and hence the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) was attracted and the price of goods purchased was liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessed.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, New Delhi on 4 March, 1981

The High Court had in Fitwell Engineers v. Financial Commissioner Delhi [1975] 35 STC 66 held that section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as applicable to Delhi, operated only when goods were resold inside Delhi. If the assessed sold the goods outside Delhi, then it was a "utilisation" otherwise than in accordance with the purpose for which they had been purchased. In such a case the goods were liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessed under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii). The decision of the Supreme Court, however, was that it did not matter if the purchasing party sold the goods in Delhi or outside Delhi and a resale by the dealer outside Delhi was also a resale by him. Many of the points involved in that case are not appropriate to the present case and need not be examined by us. However, there are some points which have some relevance. Firstly, the court examined the words "resale", "sale" and "by him" to hold that the sale by the purchasing party made outside the State was also a "sale" by him or a "resale" by him. The words "by him" were not confined to the dealer while operating within the Union Territory of Delhi. Furthermore, it was observed as follows and this passage has some importance here;
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1