Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer Etc. on 29 May, 1958
Indian Standard Wagon Co's case, 1958-9 STC 553 : (AIR 1960 Cal 25) is urged to be doubtful, in view of what been held by a Division Bench of the same High Court in Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd, v. Commercial Tax Officer, 1960-11 STC 47 : (AIR 1960 Cal 424).
Messrs Ashok Leyland Ltd vs The State Of Madras on 28 March, 1961
The learned Government Pleader has, on the other hand, argued that for claiming exemption under Article 286(2), the sales must form part of the channel, Which constitutes inter-State trade, and where the delivery to the purchaser concludes the transfer of ownership within the State, in which the contract been entered, the sales cease to be part of the commercial channel flowing between two States. He has argued that the exemption under Article 286 (2) would not apply to such cases, and in support relies on Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Madras, 1957-8 SCT 210: (AIR 1957 Mad 263). In this case the assesses company assembled motor-cars in Madras State and sold them to dealers outside the State. In certain sales the dealers outside the State sent their drivers to the assessee's factory, who took delivery of the cars, and transported them outside the State. Such sales were claimed to be exempt under Article 286 (2) but the Madras High Court rejected the claim, and held that the stream of inter-State trade or commerce commenced only after the dealer, as buyer, took delivery of the goods, and the antecedent sale to him by the assesses was a distinct and closed transaction before that stream commenced.
Birendra Nath Guha vs Commissioner Of Taxes on 5 May, 1958
3. The revision petitioner's learned advocate has urged that, as the movement of the goods is occasioned by the agreement beyond the border of the State, the sales under it are inter-State; and in support of this argument ho has relied on Birendra Nath Guha v. Commissioner of Taxes, (1959) 10 STC 327: (AIR 1958 Assam 119). In that case the Assam High Court has held sales of sleepers under agreement, with conditions similar to those before us, to be interstate, and has also found that handing over of the sleepers to the carrier would constitute delivery to the buyer or his agent, should the sleepers be delivered in the allottee State for the purpose of consumption therein. Such sales were held exempt under Article 286 (2) of the Constitution and not liable to the taxation law of the State, where the sleepers been sold.
THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956
The Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956
Addison And Co. Ltd. vs The State Of Madras on 15 September, 1959
The Government Pleader has next relied on Addison and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras, 1960-11' STC 345 (Mad) where it has been held that a sale completed by delivery of the goods within the State to the buyer or his agent, was not a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce,
within the meaning of Article 286 (2) prior to it amendment by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956, even if the buyer bought the goods solely for transporting them outside the State and did transport them.
Tata Iron And Steel Co., Limited,Bombay vs S. R. Sarkar And Others on 29 August, 1960
We feel the correct legal position to be between the two arguments. It is clear that Parliament had not enacted in the Central Sales Tax Act something different to what Courts had earlier found to be the meaning of the movement of goods between inter-States being free. It further follows that what the Supreme Court has held to be inter-State sales for purposes of the Central Sales Tax Act, would be a safe guide for determining what is part of inter-State commerce, and thus exempted under Article 286 (2). Therefore, the test applied in the majority judgment of Tata Iron and Steel Co.'s case, (1960) 11 STC 655 : (AIR 1961 SC 65) for sale being inter-State, may safely be adopted for deciding whether the bargain is entitled to the exemption. But it is clear that the movement contemplated in the aforesaid case must he closely linked with the sale of goods and is not intended to cover later movement undertaken for the better enjoyment of goods after the title had passed. A different conclusion would result in confusing subsequent carriage of goods with their sale even where the two be sufficiently separated.
1