Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.87 seconds)

Har Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors on 21 January, 1975

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Har Shankar's case (supra) the amount charged to the licensees is not a fee or tax, but is in the nature of price of a privilege which the purchaser has to pay in any trading or business transactions and it is evident what this primary condition needs to be fulfilled in order to obtain the country liquor from the distilleries. Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the Explanation to Section 206C, the State becomes seller vis-a-vis the licensee, the moment it confers a right on such "buyer" to receive the specified goods i.e. country liquor in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 1073 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Rudra And Company, Madan Lal And Company ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 March, 1998

11. We may also mention here the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Rudra & Co. v. Union of India[\ 998] 233 ITR 66, wherein it has been held that Government Distilleries squarely came under the Explanation to Section 206C and it was obligatory on the part of Government Distilleries being sellers to collect income-tax from the buyers at the rates specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 206C. The said decision also lends support to the view that the definition of 'buyer' as given in Clause (a) of the Explanation would cover a person obtaining goods of the nature of alcoholic liquor from the Government or its agencies and not a person who only obtains a licence to trade in alcoholic liquor and correspondingly the seller would be the Government or its agencies or any other person who directly sells the liquor to the buyer in an auction or by any other mode.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - L S Panta - Full Document
1