Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
The Triplicane Permanent Fund Ltd vs The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate ... on 29 October, 2024
cites
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Sakthi Sugars Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 14 November, 1984
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent relies on the decision
in the case of Sakthi Sugars Limited v Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes [(1985) 59 STC 52(MAD)].
Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) ... vs Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) And Ors. on 1 October, 2001
4. On the question of penalty, learned counsel for petitioner would
rely on the decision in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P)
Limited v Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) & Others [125 STC 505],
submitting that the levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act is
possible only in cases of best judgment assessment.
Madras Pawn Brokers Association vs State Of Tamil Nadu. (And Other Cases) on 27 April, 1995
7.The Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of
this Court in Madras Pawn Brokers Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu [(1995) 98 STC 457 (Mad.)]. In light of the
same, there is no justification in the assessee not remitting
sales tax.
Karnataka Pawn Brokers Assn. & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 October, 1998
6.The issue is prima facie covered by a judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Pawn
Brokers' Association and others v. State of Karnataka and
others [(1998) 111 STC 752]. The operative portion is set
out in paragraphs 20 and 21 extracted below:
Section 24 in Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
L.S. Chandramouli And Company vs The State Of Madras on 19 April, 1966
'20.Now coming to the contention that inasmuch as
the pawnbroker is given liberty to bid and purchase at the
sale of unredeemed goods, he cannot be deemed as a
“seller” as one cannot sell the goods to himself. This
contention is misconceived as the pawnbroker in such
circumstance plays a dual role-one as a pawnbroker and
the other as individual self. As a matter of fact, a similar
question arose before the Madras High Court in
L.S.Chandramouli and Company v. State of Madras [1996]
18 STC 325. In that case, the question for consideration
was whether a local agent of a non-resident principal, who
carried on business of his own also transfers the goods of
non-resident principal to his own business can be
considered as a transaction of sale chargeable to tax. The
learned Judges overruling a similar contention held that the
concerned agent held two different capacities-one as an
agent of a non-resident principal-and the other as
proprietor of his own business, two different identities
altogether, while transferring the goods of the non-resident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11208, 11209, 11210, 11211, 11212 & 11213 of 2008
principal to himself, he not only acted as agent of his non-
1