Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs United Tractors on 26 April, 2004 cites

Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. & Ors. ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 May, 1974

8. The above entry is a comprehensive entry and includes the motor vehicles, chassis, bodies, tankers built or meant for mounting on chassis. It was argued by the dealer that the intention of the Legislature is clear that the chassis and bodies built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles have been treated alike. But the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh has held otherwise which reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 21 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

A. Hajee Abdul Shakoor And Company vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1964

In A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor & Co. v. State of Madras , this Court held that 'hides and skins in the untanned condition are undoubtedly different as Articles of merchandise than tanned hides and skins' and pointed out that 'the fact that certain Articles are mentioned under the same heading in a statute or the Constitution, does not mean that they all constitute one commodity.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 142 - R Dayal - Full Document

S. Jagannath vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 1996

We may also refer to the decisions in Jagannath v. Union of India , where tobacco in the whole leaf and tobacco in the broken leaf were treated as two different commodities, East India Tobacco Co. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh , where Virginia tobacco and country tobacco were treated as two different commodities, and T.G. Venkataraman v. State of Madras cane jaggery and palm jaggery were treated as two different commodities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 102 - K Singh - Full Document

T.G. Venkataraman Etc vs State Of Madras & Anr on 17 July, 1969

We may also refer to the decisions in Jagannath v. Union of India , where tobacco in the whole leaf and tobacco in the broken leaf were treated as two different commodities, East India Tobacco Co. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh , where Virginia tobacco and country tobacco were treated as two different commodities, and T.G. Venkataraman v. State of Madras cane jaggery and palm jaggery were treated as two different commodities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 16 - J C Shah - Full Document

Vikrama Engineering Company vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 March, 1985

3. The Tribunal has held that the trailer sold by the dealer is an attachment of tractor and is, thus, covered by the subsequent Notification No. 5785. The term "trailer" is of general nature and description. It means a thing which trails behind the vehicle. The dictionary meaning of the word "trailer" has been discussed Vikrama Engineering Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2001] 121 STC 385 (TNTST). The relevant portion is quoted below (page 387):
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Molla Md. Abdul Halim. on 7 May, 1952

6. A question arose before this Court as to which of the two notifications apply to the tractor trolley. The Sales Tax Tribunal proceeded with the assumption that the notification dated December 7, 1979 will be applicable. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Abdul Hakim [1987] UPTC 419 held that the tractor trolley is included in the comprehensive notification dated February 10, 1972, manufactured by the assessee. It was pointed out that the subsequent notification had no application to tractor trolley in asmuch as there is a clear distinction between the trolley and trailer.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1