Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
The State Of Madras Represented By The ... vs Louis Dreyfus And Company Ltd. on 16 February, 1956 cites

Poppatlal Shah vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India And ... on 30 March, 1953

44. It will be seen from the above that the offer and acceptance which results in the contract of sale and the final acceptance of the goods in performance thereof as well as the payment of the price all took place outside this State. The only matters which occurred in this jurisdiction were (1) the presence of the goods at the time of the formation of the contract and their despatch from here to implement it; (2) the consignment of the goods by rail by railway-receipts in which the buyer is shown as both consignor or consignee. It was the first factor and that alone that was held to impose tax liability on the assessee by Subba Rao, J., based on the decision of this Court in Poppatlal Shah's case (1952) 2 M.L.J. 593. But in view of the reversal of this view by the Supreme Court, the presence of the goods here at the time of the sale should be held to be irrelevant; and this was conceded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 192 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

A.S. Nagappa Chettiar And Anr. vs Annapoorani Achi Alias Karuppayi Achi ... on 5 December, 1940

18. The second head of argument on this aspect of the case turns upon the scope of the rule-making power under Section 19. Reliance was placed in this connection principally on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Nagappa v. Annapooroni Achi (1941) 1 M.L.J. 164 : I.L.R. (1941) Mad. 261 (F.B.), where this Court held that Rule 8 of the rules framed under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act providing for appeals from orders of trial Courts was ultra sires the rule-making power under Section 28 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act IV of 1938. That case arose in the following circumstances. An application filed under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act was dismissed by a Subordinate Judge and an appeal was preferred therefrom to this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Khemchand Ramdas on 7 April, 1938

22, The Commissioner of Income-lax, Madras v. Sheikh Abdul Kadir Marakaya & Co. (1927) 54 M.L.J. 298 (F.B.), and of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Khemchand Ramdas (1938) 2 M.L.J. 115 : L.R. 65 I.A. 236 : I.L.R. (1938) Bom. 487 (P.C.). We do not propose to discuss the facts of these cases or refer to the observations in them as regards the proper construction of Section 34 of the Income-tax Ace because in our opinion there is no real analogy between Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The scheme of the two enactments is wholly different.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 150 - Full Document

Gandhi Sons Ltd. vs State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 1 April, 1955

48. We have had occasion to deal with a similar question in Gandhi and Sons v. State of Madras (1955) 2 M.L.J. 545, and therefore, we do not find it necessary to embark again on any detailed discussion of the legal principles involved. Following the reasoning of that decision we hold that the learned Judges were right in their view, that the property in the goods in what are termed the Bombay sales did not pass to the buyer within this State.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1