Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)D. Masanda & Co. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 9 February, 1957
4. The first is a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of D. Masanda & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, . The facts of that case were that, during the year 1952-53, the assessee imported photographic materials of the value of Rs. 37,599/-., of which materials of the values of Rs. 11,900/- were utilised by him in taking photographs and supplying copies thereof to the order oh his customers on payment. Before the taxing authority, the assessee contended that he could not be assessed to sales tax on the value of the materials used by him in taking photographs, as there was no sale of those materials when, with the aid of those materials, he took photographs for his customers and supplied to them copies of the photographs on payment. That contention was rejected by the taxing authorities, and the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on the value of the photographic materials imported by him and utilised by him in his business as a photographer. The assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was upheld in revision by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and on a Reference to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, that decision was confirmed. The question referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in that case actually was whether the photographic material consumed in photographic work could be treated as a sale, and the assessee could be said to be a dealer vis-a-vis such material. The High Court answered both parts of the question in the affirmative and there could really be no quarrel with that decision.
M. Ghosh vs The State Of Bihar on 8 July, 1960
5. The next in point of time is the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of M. Ghosh v. State of Bihar, . The facts of that case were that the petitioner carried on the business of a professional photographer, and was the proprietor of a shop and a photographic studio in Patna, and he was assessed to sales tax for the period from 1-1-1952 to 31-3-1955. The contention of the petitioner before the sales tax authority was that sales tax could not be lawfully levied on finished articles like photographs, as the action of the petitioner in taking photographs of customers and developing and printing negatives was not tantamount to sale of goods within the meaning of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. Having failed at all stages of the proceedings before the Revenue authorities, the question as to whether, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax with regard to the sale of photographs of customers taken by him for the purpose of supplying printed copies of photographs to them on payment was referred to the Patna High Court against the assessee, and he was held liable to pay sales tax on the same.
B.V. Bhatta vs The State Of Madras on 11 September, 1964
6. The third decision in chronological order which was relied upon by Mr. Khambatta was the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of B. V. Bhatia v. State of Madras, (1965) 16 STC 441 at p. 445 (Mad) (second point). The said case related to two distinct types of transactions, the first relating to sales of radios, and the second relating to what has been called in the said case, "Photo House Studio receipts" amounting to Rs. 2,023.30 for the assessment year 1959-60. We are concerned in the present case only with the second type of transactions.
Chelaram Hasomal vs The State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 1964
7. The next case to which I must refer is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Chelaram Hasomal v. State of Gujarat, (1965) 16 STC 1021 (at pp. 1028-1930) (Guj) which, in my opinion, is clearly distinguishable on facts. The assessee in that case prepared photographs of gods, saints, public men, and even private individuals, and transferred them by a certain process on enamelled copper plates. The question referred to the High Court, however, related only to enamelled photographs of individuals. In holding that that amounted to a contract of sale the Court no doubt, proceeded on the analogy in that case was clearly distinguishable from the normal transaction of a photographer.
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
In the case of transaction for work and labour done, and materials furnished, the first question that has, therefore, to be considered is the contract in question "Entire and indivisible", or does the transaction embody two distinct and separate contracts, one for the sale for goods as such, and the other for work and labour that is precisely what has not been considered at all in the cases , or in the Australian case reported in 53 Com WLR 69, which have been strongly relied upon by the taxing authorities in the present case, which I will presently discuss. In the first of those cases, severability was assumed whilst the learned Judges who decided each of the remaining cases appear to have assumed that the transactions which they were considering were entire and indivisible, which is the primary question that must be decided in all such case. I am, therefore, unable to follow the decisions in those cases. It is only in the case of contracts that are "entire and indivisible" that the tests laid down in the passage from Halsbury quoted above and by the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd.'s case, have to be applied for the purpose of determining the real nature of the transaction.
Government of India Act, 1935
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 17 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd., 37 ... vs The State Of Madras, Represented By ... on 2 September, 1958
13. The tests laid down by the Madras High Court in the Sundaram Motor's case, and by the Gujarat High Court in Jariwala's case, for the purpose of determining the severability or otherwise of a transaction which involves work and labour as well as the supply of materials, therefore, are: whether there was an agreement, express or implied, between the parties that the materials should be treated as sold separatim, and whether the intention to sell the materials, as such, has been proved.