Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.50 seconds)The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 16 in The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Maman Chand Kundan Lal vs The State Of Haryana And Anr. on 17 December, 1969
14. The question involved in Maman Chand Kundan Lal v. State of Haryana [1970] 25 STC 458 was whether gram chhilka was gram husk or fodder and so was exempt from the liability of sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (No. 46 of 1948). It was held that gram chhilka is exempt from payment of sales tax.
Express Dairy Company Limited vs The Assessing Authority And Ors. on 14 January, 1971
15. It was observed in Express Dairy Company Limited v. Assessing Authority [1971] 28 STC 37 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as under :
Omrao Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) ... vs Sales Tax Officer And Anr. on 12 November, 1973
It may be mentioned that this view is in conformity with the view taken in Ontrao Industrial Corporation's case [1974] 33 STC 343 but no reference was made therein.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Prag Ice And Oil Mills on 11 September, 1974
17. A similar question arose in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Prayag Ice & Oil Mills (1985) 12 STL 108 wherein the learned Judge took the view that the de-oiled rice bran had a direct link with and could be used only as a cattle fodder and, therefore, it was nothing but cattle fodder which was exempt from tax.
Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar vs The Sales Tax Officer on 8 January, 1969
Dealer (non-petitioner No. 1) has purchased gowar as raw material and therefore has not paid any sales tax at the time of purchase. As soon as from gowar gum is manufactured then, under the Schedule, it is liable to payment of tax. As gowar churi can be used for no other purpose except as cattle feed, the Board was justified in holding that entry 9, while excluding gowar, does not include gowar churi. Learned counsel for the assessing authority has invited our attention to Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 25 STC 118, wherein the question arose whether "arhar dal purchased by dal mills converted into broken pieces" is the same commodity or not. It was held that the dal purchased by the petitioner could not be said to be a commodity essentially different from (sic) by the petitioner in that case, could not be regarded as the first purchase and the petitioner was, therefore, not liable to the levy of purchase tax under Section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (No. 15 of 1948), on the turnover of such purchase. The case has been decided on its own facts and in view of Section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.