Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 146 (4.15 seconds)
Documents citing The Province Of Madras, Represented By ... vs Boddu Paidanna And Sons, Represented By ... on 5 September, 1941

State Of Kerala And Others vs Fr.William Fernandez Etc Etc on 9 October, 2017

In Paragraph 30, following has been laid down:­ “.....We   must   however   say   that   the   “original package   doctrine”   as   enunciated   by   Chief Justice Marshall  on which  reliance  was  placed was expressly disapproved first by the Federal Court   in   the   Province   of   Madras   v.   Boddu Paidanna   and   again   by   the   Supreme   Court   in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara.....”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 107 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel And Co vs The Union Of India And Anther on 11 December, 1961

The decision in the Milk Board case follows in general the same lines as did the earlier decisions which have been detailed and discussed by Sir Maurice Gwyer C. J. in Paidanna's case. In these circumstances we do not consider it useful or necessary to discuss these decisions. Undoubtedly, there are passages in these judgments in the Australian Courts which refer to the fact that an excise duty is an instance of an indirect tax. As regards the general proposition, however, there is little controversy, but these decisions did not lay down that if by reason of the tax being levied retrospectively the duty cannot be passed on it ceased to be a duty of excise. On the other hand, there is express and high authority for the position that a duty of excise could be validly levied with retrospective effect under the Australian Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 80 - Cited by 234 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Intercontinental Consultants And ... on 7 March, 2018

“The argument confuses the incidence of taxation with the machinery provided for the collection thereof,” and reference was made to In re the Central Provinces and Berar Act 14 of 1938[AIR 1939 FC 1, 6 : 1939 FCR 18] , Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons [1942 FCR 90, 101 : AIR 1942 FC 33] and Governor-General in Council v. Province of Madras [1945 FCR 179 : AIR 1945 FC 98] . This Court then summarised the law as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 91 - A K Sikri - Full Document

State Of Kerala And Others vs Fr.William Fernandez Etc Etc on 9 October, 2017

In Paragraph 30, following has been laid down:­ “.....We   must   however   say   that   the   “original package   doctrine”   as   enunciated   by   Chief Justice Marshall  on which  reliance  was  placed was expressly disapproved first by the Federal Court   in   the   Province   of   Madras   v.   Boddu Paidanna   and   again   by   the   Supreme   Court   in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara.....”
Supreme Court of India Cites 107 - Cited by 88 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Certain Problems Connected With Power Of The States To Levy A Tax On The Sale Of ...

The Court did not accept the suggestion made from the Bar that on the construction of article 286(1)(b) indicated by.the Court, a "sale in the course of export" would become practically synonymous with "export" and reduce clause (b) to a mere redundancy. The Supreme Court pointed out that in the absence of article 236(ll(b) which expressly prohibits imposition of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods in the course of import or export, the States might impose tax on such sales and pur- chases in exercise of their exclusive power under entry 54 of the State List and the Union also might impose customs duties. in exercise of its exclusive power under entry 83 of the Union List and thus the same sale by "export and the same purchase by import would be subject to both sales-tax and customs duties, because these two imposts are essentially of a difierent charac- ter. As already mentioned, the Supreme Court in support of this view cited the Federal Court case of Province of Madras vs. Boddu Paidanna (1942) FCR 90 where the Federal Court held that both central excise duty and provincial sales tax could be validly imposed on the first sale of groundnut oil and cake by the manufacturer or producer as "the two taxes are economi- cally two separate and distinct imposts."
Law Commission Report Cites 133 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954

orised by the terms of the Explanation. Two grounds were urged in support of this contention: (1) that under the Explanation truly construed, a seller could be taxed only if he is within the State, and (2) that the goods were actually delivered not in Bihar but in Bengal and that therefore the Explanation did not apply. The argument in support of the first ground was that as the Explanation enacts that the sale or purchase-not merely the sale-must be deemed to have taken place in the delivery State, it must be construed in the light of the presumption that the laws of a State are intended to operate on persons or things within its territory, and so construed, it should be held to authorise the levy of a tax on the seller only if he was within the State or on the purchaser who must be within the territory. The assumption on which this argument rests is that States have jurisdiction only over persons and property within their territory: but this, as already shown, is not correct. A State has jurisdiction to enact laws in respect of acts and events which occur within its territory, and if a sale takes place within the State as under the Explanation it does by a legal fiction, then its jurisdiction to enact a law imposing a tax thereon is complete, and no question of its overstepping its territorial limits arises. It should also be noted that the scope of the presumption that the laws of a State are not intended to operate outside its territory is, as stated by Maxwell, that "Parliament does not design its Statutes to operate on its subjects beyond the territorial limits of the United Kingdom" (Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., page 145). That has reference to extraterritorial operation in the second sense. There is no presumption that the laws of a State made with reference to acts and events occurring within its borders are not intended to have operation outside its territory. Moreover, a tax on sale of goods is, as observed in The Province of Madras v. Messrs Boddu Paidanna & Sons(1) "a tax levied on the occasion of the sale of goods" and the liability to tax arises "on the occasion (1) A.I.R. 1942 F.C. 33.
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next