State Of Orissa vs Utkal Distributors Private Ltd. on 7 March, 1973
14. The facts in Mooljee Ramjee v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes [1966] 17 S.T.C. 255, were as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.00 seconds)Anamolu Seshagiri Rao And Co. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 24 November, 1978
In the case before us, as pointed put by the Madras High Court in Muoljee Ramjee and Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai Division [1966] 17 S.T.C. 255, the assessee cannot be considered to be the agent of the railway for the purpose of quarrying inasmuch as he himself has to make his own arrangements for obtaining the ballast from the quarries and the quarries do not belong to the railways.
Sabarmati Reti Udyog Kamdar Sahakari ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat ... on 9 December, 1970
29. Mr. Shah next relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kalva Suryanarayana ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 317), the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Pamandas Sindhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 74) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Mooljee Ramjee & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai Division ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 255), and urged that in each of the said three cases, the courts had taken the view that as a result of the right conferred upon the contractor to pick up the produce of the land or to excavate the soil with a view to winning minor minerals from the land belonging to the Government without the liability to make payment therefor resulted in the transfer of property in the produce or the minor minerals as the case may be, to the contractor. We have perused the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Shah and find that the decision in each of the said three cases has turned upon the peculiar terms of the different contracts and those decisions do not assist us in deciding, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the true nature and character of the transaction with which we are concerned.
Anamolu Seshagiri Rao And Company And ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 20 March, 1972
38. We are fortified in our view by the following decisions, Mooljee Ramjee & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) [1966] 17 S.T.C. 255, Seth Pamandas Sindhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1963] 14 S.T.C. 74, Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 S.T.C. 766 (S.C.)
P.K. Muthurama Reddiar vs State Of Madras on 16 October, 1967
4. A few decided cases have been cited before us, but before we notice some of them, it should be observed that each case has been decided on the particular facts. Bakthavatsalu v. State of Madras [1963] 14 S.T.C. 832 is a case where the assessee himself was the owner of the goods supplied, unlike Mooljee Ramjee and Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) [1966] 17 S.T.C. 255 where the purchaser not own any property in the goods supplied. In both these cases the Court took the view that the relative transactions were sales of goods, applying the principles of transfer of property.
1