Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.48 seconds)
State Of Kerala vs M/S.Oppoottil Agencies on 4 January, 2002 cites

Indo International Industries vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Uttar ... on 25 March, 1981

16. He refers to CDJ 1981 SC 221 (M/s Indo International Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh). In this case controversy was, whether hypodermic clinical syringes could be regarded as "glassware" under Entry No. 39 of the First Schedule to the U.P. Sales Tax Act 1948 ? The lordships, after referring to the purpose for which hypodermic clinical syringes were used, opined that, though the expression 'glassware', dictionary meaning means 'articles made of glass', however, in commercial sense, glassware would never comprise articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like which have specialised significance and utility. Therefore in popular or commercial parlance a general merchant dealing in "glassware" does not ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, S.T. Rev. Nos. 486 & 560 of 2004 :16: lactometres etc., which articles though made of glass are normally available in medical stores or with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee in that case. Ultimately, their lordships held that, the clinical syringes, which the assessee manufactured and sold cannot be considered as "glassware" falling under Entry 39 of the First Schedule of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 150 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ... on 18 June, 1991

20. As against this, the learned Government Pleader relies upon (1992) 86 STC 95 (State of Gujarat Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.). In this case, the question was whether linear alkyl benzene (LAB) is a petroleum product or not. Their lordships held that though linear alkyl benzene is manufactured from kerosene and benzene, both petroleum products, has to be treated as a petroleum product, unless it can be shown that it ceased to be one after manufacture, especially since persons dealing in the commodity treat (LAB) as a petroleum product.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Indian Eyelets Industries on 25 January, 1984

21. He relies upon (1984) 55 STC 354 (State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Indian Eyelets Industries), wherein the question arose before their lordships was whether Fiksol - S.69 is a chemical, which attracts expression "dyes and chemicals" in Entry 138 of First Schedule to Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act . Their lordships held that Fiksol - S.69 is an all purpose adhesive used S.T. Rev. Nos. 486 & 560 of 2004 :19: for binding various surfaces such as leather, rubber etc. though made of certain ingredients which are in the form of chemicals, cannot be treated to be a chemical by itself since the use of the product was adhesive for binding purpose, therefore any chemical effect or result in any change cannot be the criterion, ultimately held that, it would not attract the expression "dyes and chemicals".
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

State Of A.P. vs General Electronic Corporation on 16 June, 1999

18. He places reliance upon (2000) 118 STC 514 (State of A.P Vs. General Electronics Corporation), wherein their lordships had an occasion to consider what exactly M-seal means, whether, it is an adhesive or not. Ultimately, it was held M-seal is not an adhesive and it is not covered by Entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act of 1957. According to them, it was used as a blocking agent to block the leakages of liquids and is covered by Entry general goods.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next