Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.40 seconds)
Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Sterling Machine Tools on 12 March, 2003 cites

Sterling Machine Tools vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 23 August, 1978

Pumping sets, which have been found to be agricultural implements, are not taken out of the purview of item No. 1 and placed within the purview of item 52 by the 1974 amendment. That is done only in respect of water pumps. The High Court did not advert to this aspect at all. It only referred to its judgment in the case of Sterling Machine Tools v. Commissioner of, Sales Tax, U.P, [1979] 43 STC 72 ; wherein the question of the amendment of the items did not arise and no finding of fact by the revisional authority had been made in favour of the assessee. The High Court's view must be reversed."
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr. vs Engineering Traders on 10 February, 1988

13. A perusal of amendment shows that by Act No. 38 of 1975 only water pump was excluded from the agricultural implement and included in the machinery. Further by Notification No. ST-II-5785/ X.....dated September 7, 1981 and Notification No. ST-II-5784/X, dated September 7, 1981, "pumping set" was specifically excluded from agricultural implement and included in the machinery. This also shows that "water pump" and "pumping set" were two different items and by Act No. 38 of 1975, only "water pump" was excluded and with effect from September 7, 1981, both "water pump" and "pumping set" were excluded from agricultural implement. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Engineering Traders 1990 UPTC 838 and the division Bench in the cases of Basant Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1975] 36 STC 209 (All.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Basant Industries vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 6 December, 1974

13. A perusal of amendment shows that by Act No. 38 of 1975 only water pump was excluded from the agricultural implement and included in the machinery. Further by Notification No. ST-II-5785/ X.....dated September 7, 1981 and Notification No. ST-II-5784/X, dated September 7, 1981, "pumping set" was specifically excluded from agricultural implement and included in the machinery. This also shows that "water pump" and "pumping set" were two different items and by Act No. 38 of 1975, only "water pump" was excluded and with effect from September 7, 1981, both "water pump" and "pumping set" were excluded from agricultural implement. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Engineering Traders 1990 UPTC 838 and the division Bench in the cases of Basant Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1975] 36 STC 209 (All.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Engineering Traders vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 21 November, 1972

Against the said order, Special Leave Petition was filed by the State which was allowed and the Full Bench decision in the case of Engineering Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 31 STC 456, 1973 UPTC 91 was set aside. The honourable Supreme Court had reversed the judgment of this Court in the case of Engineering Traders [1973] 31 STC 456, 1973 UPTC 91, in view of the amendment made in the relevant notification by section 31 of the Amending Act of U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 38 of 1975), by which, in the relevant notification the word "Agricultural implements, other than implements worked by human or animal power and water pumps" have been substituted and was deemed to have been substituted in place of previous expressions used namely "Agricultural implements, other than those worked by human or animal power."
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi vs West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 26 February, 1979

'Even if there is some conflict in the two Supreme Court's decisions, we have to follow the law as declared in the latter case of Mysore State Transport Corporation/To the same effect is the view taken by a Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. AIR 1980 Kar 92, and by Calcutta High Court in Sovachand Mulchand v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs AIR 1968 Cal. 174.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 64 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Sovachand Mulchand vs The Collector Of Central Excise And Land ... on 23 November, 1966

'Even if there is some conflict in the two Supreme Court's decisions, we have to follow the law as declared in the latter case of Mysore State Transport Corporation/To the same effect is the view taken by a Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. AIR 1980 Kar 92, and by Calcutta High Court in Sovachand Mulchand v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs AIR 1968 Cal. 174.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani And Ors. vs Municipal Committee, Malkapur on 1 April, 1970

In Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Malkapur AIR 1970 SC 1002, the Supreme Court held that a Supreme Court's judgment is binding on High Court and it cannot be ignored on ground that relevant provision was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. To us, it appears that it is only in cases of decision of concurrent Courts that the doctrine of per incuriam can be applied. Thus, the law declared by the Supreme Court cannot be ignored on that basis. A failure to cite authority of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court before it is not sufficient to render its latter decision per incuriam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 101 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next