Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. vs Collector Of Customs on 24 May, 1988 cites

Goverdhan Hathibhai And Co. vs Appellate Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 24 August, 1960

Another submission of the learned SDR is that the sale in the instant case has been done in the course of import of vacuvators. It is immaterial that the sale in the strict sense has been effected subsequently inasmuch as title in the goods to CIWTC has passed only in April 1986 after the lightering operation. Import of vacuvators in the instant case has been occasioned by the purported sale to be effected at a later date in terms of the agreement. It is not really material that the sale has taken place subsequent to import. For this purpose learned SDR relies on Supreme Court judgment in Sales Tax case in the case of K.G. Khosla & Co. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1966 (17) STC 473.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

K. G. Khosla & Co vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 18 January, 1966

Another submission of the learned SDR is that the sale in the instant case has been done in the course of import of vacuvators. It is immaterial that the sale in the strict sense has been effected subsequently inasmuch as title in the goods to CIWTC has passed only in April 1986 after the lightering operation. Import of vacuvators in the instant case has been occasioned by the purported sale to be effected at a later date in terms of the agreement. It is not really material that the sale has taken place subsequent to import. For this purpose learned SDR relies on Supreme Court judgment in Sales Tax case in the case of K.G. Khosla & Co. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1966 (17) STC 473.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 96 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Hakam Singh vs M/S. Gammon (India) Ltd on 8 January, 1971

8. Replying, learned advocate for the appellant company submits that agreements have to be read in what is stated in black and white there. Wisdom of the Court cannot be imported or implied by substituting the words in the agreements. He relies for this proposition on Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (AIR 1971 SC 740). He also submits that sale is a necessary ingredient of Section 14 and it is the sale price which is to be taken into account for determining the value under that Section.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 212 - J C Shah - Full Document

Mcdowell & Co. Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer on 2 September, 1987

We agree with the teamed SDR that the agreement of contracts entered into by the appellant company with Vencedora have to be read as a whole. That reading does not leave any doubt that vacuvators were imported with the express purpose of ultimately selling them to CIWTC and the vacuvators that were imported on 12.3.1976, even though as part of stores of Kapetan Markos, were brand new. Value of vacuvators, therefore, for the purpose of assessment under Section 14 has to be taken as on the date of import and not on the date of artificial sale in April 1976 effected in terms of the sale agreement. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1985 (3) SC Cases 230 that "colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges [para 45 of the judgment delivered by Justice Ranganathan Misra (J)]". Viewed in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court charge of mis-declaration of value against the appellant clearly comes out. Accordingly, liability (to) confiscation of goods under Section 111 (m) is proved beyond doubt Case law relied upon by the advocate is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 31 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1