Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Jethmal Ramswaroop And Ors. vs The State And Ors. on 8 April, 1958
Reference was also made to another decided case, Jethmal Ramswaroop v. State ([1959] 10 S.T.C. 270.), where it was held that misri and batasha were not merely sugar and the fact that sales tax had not been paid on sugar is no reason for not levying sales tax on these articles made from sugar.
Paro And Co. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 June, 1969
In Paro & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ([1970] 25 S.T.C. 34.), the question arose whether sugarcandy was exempt as being sugar. In that case, the Appellate Tribunal had held that sugar-candy and bura sugar were chargeable to additional duties of excise and were, therefore, not subject to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. There are certain observations in the judgment which are of assistance in the present case. At page 37, it was stated :
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Channulal Motilal vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 11 January, 1965
5. The next case which can be referred to is Channulal Motilal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 297.), which is a direct case relating to batasha, chiranji and mishri. In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that batasha, chiranji and mishri cannot be regarded as sugar within the meaning of entry 41 of Schedule I of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
Dalichand Motichand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 2 November, 1962
The court referred in its judgment to Punamchand Dalichand v. State of Bombay, decided by the Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal, and distinguished the same on the ground that the Bombay Sales Tax Act defined sugar as defined in entry No. 8 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and, therefore, for the purpose of interpreting the Bombay Act the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, could be referred to. But for interpreting the Madhya Pradesh Act, the common parlance or popular sense of the word should be used. It was also held that obviously sugar as understood in the popular sense did not include products like batasha, chiranji and mishri.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Puran Chand And Sons on 27 August, 1979
17. The learned counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax referred to the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi v. Puran Chand & Sons, Delhi (page 284 infra.) (S.T.R. Nos. 6 and 7 of 1973 decided on 27th August, 1979). In that case, the item under consideration was "icing sugar" which consisted of 5 per cent of starch and 95 per cent of sugar. The court observed :
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Roshan Lal Balram on 10 January, 1972
22. Then there is a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported as Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow, v. Roshan Lal Balram ([1972] 30 S.T.C. 166.). This was a care in which batasha were directly involved. The contention of the assessed was that batasha and khandsari sugar are one and the same commodity and in fact batasha was another form of khandsari sugar. This contention was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, who levied tax on the turnover of batasha at the rate of 2 per cent. In the final revision, the assessed contended that batasha and Khandsari were not different commodities, but the same. This was accepted and then a reference was brought to the court. It was contended by the assessed that he was neither an importer nor a manufacturer of khandsari; he merely prepared batasha from sugar and batasha were nothing more than Khandsari sugar in a different form. The court accepted this contention and held that batasha were not different from khandsari sugar.
1