Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 22 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Raj Steel & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of A.P. & Anr. Etc. Etc on 16 May, 1989
24. Under the Andhra Pradesh Act, section 6-C deems the sale of packing material, although there is no sale of the packing material vide Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989] 74 STC 379 at 388. This deeming provision was held to be a clarificatory provision, "at best", by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court proceeds that, in a few cases, it is possible that the price of goods is determined upon a consideration of several components of a sale, including the value of packing material, but none the less the price paid for, is the price of the goods. In such cases it is not open to analyse the value of different components; in other words, when the value of goods is determined by taking into consideration the value of the packing materials also, it is impermissible to analyse and separate the value of the packing material for the purpose of levying the sales tax. Section 6-C of the Andhra Pradesh Act in such a situation, levies the same rate of tax on the packing material as applicable to the goods packed in it. This was held to be valid, because, the transaction between the dealer and the purchaser, is essentially in respect of the goods. If an account is to be taken of the different components that make the price of the goods, all the components should attract the same rate of tax.
Section 2 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Mcdowell & Co. Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer on 2 September, 1987
"It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when rule 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Brewery Rules, 1970, was not amended as in the case of A.P. Distillery Rules, fastening the liability on the licensee of the brewery to pay the excise duty, then, on the of the decision of the Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer , it should be held that the excise duty paid by a purchaser directly to the excise authority at the time of removal of the goods from the brewery would not form part of the turnover of the manufacturer. We are unable to accept this contention in view of the two later decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it had been categorically laid down that the primary responsibility to pay excise duty was on the manufacturer and though it was paid directly to the Government by a purchaser, still it formed part of the turnover of the manufacturer."