Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.42 seconds)Constitution of India
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Amending Act, 1897
The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954
In Sales Tax Officer v. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash A.I.R. 1954 S.C 459, it was pointed out that under the statute law of India, that is the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which is based on the English common law, the term "sale" has a specific meaning. In the case of sale, there is a transfer of interest from the seller to the buyer. Therefore, there having existed at the time of the enactment of the Government of India Act, 1935, a well-defined and well-established distinction between sale and agreement to sell, it would be proper to interpret the expression sale of goods in Entry 48 in the sense in which it was used in legislation both in England and in India. The State Legislature cannot by enlarging the definition of sale as including forward contracts, arrogate to itself a power to tax, which is not conferred upon it by the Constitution Act. Accordingly, the definition of "sale" in the U.P. Sales Tax Act was declared ultra vires.
Section 2 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Assam University Act, 1989
The Province Of Madras, Represented By ... vs Boddu Paidanna And Sons, Represented By ... on 5 September, 1941
The two expressions merely make a distinction between the two parties to a transaction of sale. Purchase is no more than a phase or a facet of the sale transaction. It is not correct therefore to say that Entry 48 of the Government of India Act was limited to sales as distinguished from purchases. It was held in Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons A.I.R. 1942 F.C. 33 that "though the word 'purchase' was not in this item (Entry 48), the item gave the power to tax the transaction of sale and the power to tax either party thereto.