Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.28 seconds)Section 3 in THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956 [Entire Act]
Gordhandas Lalji vs B. Banerjee & Ors on 7 April, 1958
In Gordhandas Lalji v. B. Banerjee [1958] 9 S.T.G. 581, Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was), said as follows:--
C.P. Timber Works vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax And Ors. on 6 March, 1964
I have already referred to the case decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, C. P. Timber Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore [1964] 15 S.T.C. 602. The facts in that case were very much like the instant case. The contract was for sale of goods with the Director-General of Stores, Supplies and Disposals, Government of India. Under the contract, the place of delivery was F.O.R. a railway station within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The assessee kept the timber logs ready for inspection at that place. The inspecting authority inspected the timber, issued an inspection certificate and put a mark on the approved timber. The assessee despatched the timber by goods train to places outside the State, obtained the railway receipts in the name of the consignee, sent the receipts by registered post and received ninety per cent. of the price. The balance of ten per cent. was received by the assessee on receipt of the consignment in good condition by the consignee, who had a right of re-inspection at the place of destination. Even so, it was held that the delivery was within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that there is no evidence in this case that the goods were, in fact, despatched to Kanpur. Since they were indented for use at Kanpur they were probably so despatched. But there is no evidence of that fact. Mr. Banerjee tried to use certain documents which were never used in the tribunals below and I cannot allow the facts to be developed in a way which is entirely different from the way it was marshalled hitherto. It is abundantly clear that after the goods were delivered at Hastings in Calcutta, the seller had no longer anything to do with the goods. It had no duty to despatch the same to Kanpur and, in fact, did not do so. I have already mentioned, that on the very same day that the goods were delivered the petitioner billed Government for the whole amount. It is true that under W.S.B. 133 there are two ways of delivering the goods. One is by delivering them to the inspecting authority and the second is by putting them on railway F.O.R. for a destination outside the State. Even assuming that in the latter case the delivery should be deemed to be outside the State, the facts in the instant case are otherwise. There is no question of the petitioner despatching the goods by railway. It delivered the goods to the inspecting authority locally and as soon as the inspecting authority found that the goods were in accordance with the contract, the matter ended so far as the seller was concerned. Mr. Banerjee argues that the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is erroneous. I am unable to agree with him. But even if it is erroneous, it does not advance the matter further, because the facts in the present case are different.
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
'A sale could be said to be in the course of inter-State trade only if two conditions concur: (1) A sale of goods, and (2) a transport of those goods from one State to another under the contract of sale. Unless both these conditions are satisfied, there can be no sale in the course of inter-State trade.'
With reference to the analogous provision under Article 286(1)(b) prohibiting the imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods in the course of import or export, it has been held by this Court that it is only a sale or purchase which occasions the export or import of the goods out of or into the territory of India or a sale in the State by the exporter or importer by transfer of shipping documents, while the goods are beyond the customs barrier, that is within the exemption, and that a sale which precedes such export or import or follows it is not exempted, vide State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory [1953] 4 S.T.C. 205. On the same principles, a purchase made inside a State, for sale outside the State cannot itself be held to be in the course of inter-State trade, and the imposition of a tax thereon is not repugnant to Article 286(2) of the Constitution.
The Cement Marketing Co. Of India ... vs The State Of Mysore And Anr. on 21 March, 1960
7. The same principles were upheld in the Cement Marketing Co. of India (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Mysore and Anr [1963] 14 S.T.C. 175. Kapur, J., said as follows:--
M/S. Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... on 20 September, 1955
Thus the tests which have been laid down to bring a sale within inter-State sales are that the transaction must involve movement of goods across the border: Mohanlal Har'govind's case [1955] 6 S.T.C. 687; transactions are inter-State in which as a direct result of such sales the goods are actually delivered for consumption in another State: M/s. Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors. [1955] 6 S.T.C. 627; a contract of sale must involve transport of goods from one State to another under the contract of sale: Bengal Immunity Co.'s case [1955] 6 S.T.C. 446.
Tata Iron And Steel Co., Limited,Bombay vs S. R. Sarkar And Others on 29 August, 1960
In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Bombay v. S.R. Sarkar and Anr. [1960] 11 S.T.C. 655, Shah, J., in explaining what sales are covered by Clause (a) of Section 3 above said:
The Indian Coffee Board vs The State Of Madras on 10 November, 1955
8. This principle was also followed by a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Indian Coffee Board, Batlagundu v. The State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 135. It was held there that a sale completed by delivery within the State of Madras to the purchaser or to his agent does not come within the scope of Article 286(2) even if the purchaser bought the goods with the intention of transporting them outside the State and did transport them outside the State. Unless both the conditions of (1) a sale of goods, and (2) a transport of those goods from one State to another under the contract of sale are satisfied, there cannot be an inter-State sale.
The Commissioner Of Sales-Tax,Eastern ... vs Husenali Adamji And Co on 21 April, 1959
10. Mr. Banerjee has relied on a Supreme Court decision, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur v. Husenali Adamji and Co. A.I.R. 1959 S.G. 887 In that case, the facts were as follows: One A, resident of Chanda in the erstwhile Central Provinces, entered into an agreement with the Western India Match Co. Ltd., for the supply of sawar logs. The goods to be supplied under the contract were to be despatched by A from railway stations in the Central Provinces to Ambernath in the Province of Bombay. It was there that the factory manager of the purchaser would inspect, measure and accept the same, if in his opinion they were in accordance with the contract at the time that the goods were in existence at all as logs, although they might have been in the form of standing timber. On the facts it was held that the appropriation to the contract was made at Ambernath and that is where the title to the goods passed and the Central Provinces could not make the seller liable to sales tax. In my opinion, this decision cannot help the petitioner because the facts are not analogous. The seller may have stacked his logs in the Central Provinces but the delivery was made at Ambernath, where they were inspected and accepted by the purchaser. In the instant case, the seller appropriated the goods to the contract and delivered them to the purchaser at Calcutta. They were inspected there and as soon as the certificate was granted the goods were found to be in terms of the contract. After that, the seller could have no further title to the goods. If at all, the Supreme Court decision is against the contention of the petitioner.