Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker And Anr. vs Sales Tax Commissioner on 1 November, 1962

Dr. Sukh Deo vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 1 April, 1963

4. I have no doubt that the assessee cannot be said to be a manufacturer of the medicines. "Manufacture" has been interpreted in a wide sense by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member in Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker v. Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P., [1963] 14 S.T.C. 208 However wide a meaning may be given to the word, I do not think it includes preparation of mixtures in accordance with prescriptions to be used solely by the named patients. A notification under Section 3-A is meant for an article which is expected to be sold more than once. Under Section 3 every dealer who sells it is liable to pay a sales tax on its turnover and power has been conferred by Section 3-A upon the Government to declare that in respect of it only one of the dealers will be liable to pay sales tax and not every dealer who successively sells it. When sales tax is payable on an article the burden ultimately falls on the consumer and, if an article passes through several dealers, each of whom adds to the price the sales tax paid by him, the consumer would ultimately have to pay a very heavy price for the article. The Legislature was anxious that in respect of articles of common use the burden upon the consumer should not be so great and, therefore, conferred power upon the Government to declare that in respect of them only one dealer will pay the tax and not others. This necessity could not arise in respect of an article which was incapable of being sold by more than one dealer and was not expected to be sold except directly to the consumer. In the case of an article that could be sold only once there could not arise any question of the State Government's laying down that it shall be liable to pay tax at only one point. Medicines prepared according to prescriptions are meant to be sold only to particular patients and in respect of them there cannot be more than one point of sale and the State Government could not have intended that the notification issued by them under Section 3-A could cover them. In other words, preparing medicines according to the prescriptions could not have been intended by the State Government to come within the word "manufacture" as used in the notification.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Pawansut Bangle Stores vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer And Anr. on 27 September, 1965

6. In the instant case the question to be decided is whether the article sold by the petitioner, after the process applied by it, is different from the article purchased by it, even though both may broadly be described as glass bangles. Whether an article is converted by manufacture into a different article depends upon several criteria, and one of the essential tests is whether in a commercial sense the original article has ceased to exist and a new article has taken its place. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker v. Sales Tax Commissioner [1963] 14 S.T.C. 208 where the meaning of the word "manufacture" has been discussed. The question whether the original article has been converted into a commercially different article is a question essentially of fact and one which appropriately falls for consideration before the Sales Tax Officer.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Mewa Lal And Ors. vs Smt. Tara Rani on 21 March, 1972

In certain sales-tax cases, the word 'manufacture' has been defined and for Instance, we may quote a Division Bench decision of this court in Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker v. Sales Tax Commissioner, U. P., Lucknow, (1963) 14 STC 208. In order to prove that there was a manufacturing process, it is also essential to prove that the article must change its nature and it becomes an altogether different commercial article. In the instant case, by spreading wheat partly husked and allowing it to dry on the land one neither changes husk into something different or a commodity other than what it originally was. Therefore in the eye of law, the drying of the husk on the land in dispute cannot be said to be a manufacturing process. Secondly, as discussed above, this land was never taken for manufacturing purposes.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Vijaya Cycle And Rickshaw Co. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 21 September, 1970

16. These considerations prevailed with this court in Badri Prasad-Prabha Shanker v. Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P. [1963] 14 S.T.C. 208, where, upon the question whether tobacco leaves could be said to have been put through a manufacturing process in producing crushed and sieved tobacco it referred to a large number of cases all of which pointed to the conclusion that "in order that the process to which an article is subjected should be a manufacturing process it is not essential that the article must change its nature ; it is enough if it becomes a different commercial article." The court held that crushed and sieved tobacco resulted from a manufacturing process even though the change was confined to an alteration of the physical appearance of the tobacco leaves.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), ... vs C. Abdul Shukoor Sahib And Company on 12 March, 1963

7. A decision of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker v. Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P., [1963] 14 S.T.C. 208 has been relied upon by the respondent. That decision states that in order that the process to which an article is subjected should be a manufacturing process, it is not essential that the article must change its nature. It is enough if it becomes a different commercial article. Whether it is a commercially different article was also held to be essentially a question of fact. In that case, tobacco was crushed and sieved and there was a finding that it had become a commercially different article. The learned Judges had to consider whether a notification of the State Government granting exemption under the U. P. Sales Tax Act applied. The goods which were so exempted from the payment of sales tax in the notification was described as "tobacco leaves whether green or dried, not having been subjected to any process of manufacture." The learned Judges had to interpret this item and they reached the conclusion already stated. Whether or not the tobacco had been subjected to a process of manufacture within the meaning of the notification was the matter that called for decision therein. In the present case however what we have to decide is whether notwithstanding the processes which were adopted, the tobacco continued to be raw tobacco within the meaning of Section 5(viii) or became a product manufactured from tobacco. We are not satisfied that there is any principle derivable from the Allahabad decision which can apply to the facts of the present case. We may also point out that the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court took note of the fact that the notification which they had to construe had in fact been subsequently amended to include crushed and sieved tobacco within the scope of the exemption. Whether or not that circumstance controlled the conclusion which they reached is not necessary to be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1