Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.51 seconds)Section 5C in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S Xerox Modicorp Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2005
5. Per contra, Shri K. Vinod Chandran, learned special
Government Pleader would press for our acceptance the principle
ST.REV.NOS.30 & 69/2004 10
"quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit". He would also submit that
this is a case where, even going by the version of the petitioner,
property in the chemical is transferred to the Awarder, the moment
it is put into the effluent. The fact that it is subsequently
consumed, would not absolve the petitioner of his liability to pay
tax, as there is a transfer of property in the goods, as there is
delivery of the chemical before it is consumed. He would also
point out that the version of the petitioner which we have
extracted, would show that he has obtained the various chemicals
from the effluent which are discharged from the Travancore
Titanium Products. No doubt, there is an addition of the required
dosage of lime. He would submit that it cannot be in the region of
any doubt that the chemical in question is goods, within the
meaning of the Act and since the only contention of the petitioner
is that there is no transfer of the said goods, the matter is covered
by the Judgment of the Apex Court in Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka ((2005) 142 STC 209). We shall refer to the
ST.REV.NOS.30 & 69/2004 11
said decision in greater detail as much turns on the applicability of
the principle enunciated therein to the facts of this case.
Gannon Daunkerley & Co. & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 17 November, 1992
We would think, it may not be possible. Therefore
we would be justified in holding that the effluent and the treated
effluent both belonged to the awarder. It is, therefore, into the
ST.REV.NOS.30 & 69/2004 43
property of the awarder, namely the effluent that the assessee
supplies the chemical. The Apex Court in its decision in Gannon
Dunkerley & Co. & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others ((1993)
1 SCC 364) had, inter alia, held that cost of consumables, such as,
water, electricity, fuel etc. used in the execution of the works
contract, the property in which is not transferred in the course of
execution of a works contract, is to be deducted. In Section 5C
also, the words "not involving any transfer of property in goods"
Tata Consultancy Services vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 November, 2004
The
Court quoted the decision in Tata Consultancy Services v. State of
Andhra Pradesh ((2004) 137 STC 620) with approval.
Article 366 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs Hajee M.K. Cheriya Mamoo And Brothers on 10 January, 1986
In Velu (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that
in display of fireworks no tangible property would remain once the
display takes place. In the process of execution of the works
contract, the goods themselves (explosives) cease to exist.
Builders Association Of India & Ors. ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 31 March, 1989
"2. A bare perusal of the above Explanation is
sufficient to show that transfer of property in goods
(whether as goods or in some other form) is the sine
qua non for its application. The mere execution of a
works contract does not by itself attract liability for
tax under the Act unless it is accompanied by transfer
of property in goods, involved in the execution of the
contract. The emphasis is on the transfer of property
in goods - Builders Association of India v. Union of
India (1989) 73 STC 370 (SC) at page 396. When
goods used in the process of executing a works
contract are consumed in the process, as in the case of
the chemicals used by the petitioner or fuel and
ST.REV.NOS.30 & 69/2004 20
power, there is no transfer of any goods from the
contractor to the awarder of the contract attracting
liability to tax.