Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Tvl.Aspick Engineering (P) Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 September, 2012 cites

State Of Mysore vs Guduthur Thimmappa & Son, & Anr on 30 September, 1966

11. The decision reported in [1967] 19 STC 35 (The State of Mysore Vs. Guduthur Thimmappa and Son and another) has no relevance to the facts of the case herein. The issue raised in the said decision is a totally different issue. When we look at the facts herein, it is clear that the sale and the movement were intimately connected, that the movement of goods is a consequence of sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - V Bhargava - Full Document

The Co-Operative Sugar (Chittur) Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 April, 1993

In [1993] 90 STC 1 (Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), the Supreme Court observed that the movement of goods was an incident of sale or purchase; amounted to an inter-State sale or purchase and it is not necessary that the contract of sale has to expressly provide for the movement of goods; it was sufficient that the movement of goods is implicit in the sale. Thus, in the background of the settled position of law, if the sale effected by the assessee and the movement thereon are inextricably and intimately connected with each other, then the one and only inference that would flow from the same is that, it is an inter-State sale. Thus, the criteria for considering the transaction as an inter-State sale or not, is the movement of goods intimately connected with the sale. The fact that the purchaser had borne the insurance charges or the seller had borne the insurance charges or that the purchaser had moved the goods at their own cost would not be a decisive factor for the purpose of determining the nature of sale as inter-State sale or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes vs Bhag Singh Milkha Singh on 14 May, 1973

In the decision reported in [1974] 34 STC 535 (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar Vs. Bhag Singh Milkha Singh), it was pointed out that the obligation to take goods outside the State may be either an express covenant or an implied one under the contract by a mutual understanding and it is not necessary that in all cases, there must be direct evidence showing certain obligations. The obligation could be inferred from circumstantial evidence also.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Oil India Ltd vs The Superintendent Of Taxes & Others on 3 March, 1975

In the decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 887 (Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes (AIR 1975 SC 887), the Apex Court pointed out that for a transaction, to be an inter-State sale, there must be a movement of goods occasioned by the said sale from one State to another. No matter in which State the property in the goods passes, the movement of goods occasioned by the sale from one State to another would make a sale as one in the nature of inter-State sale. The Apex Court also pointed out that it is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement and it is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State must be specified in the contract itself. It observed that it would be enough if the movement was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract of sale ([1975] 3 SCR 797 at page 801) (page 449 of [1975] 35 S.T.C. 445); that it was held in a number of cases by the Supreme Court that if the movement of goods from one State to another is the result of a covenant or an incident of the contract of sale, then the sale is an inter-State sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 67 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Vinay Cotton Waste Company vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 July, 1984

(S.C.)), [1986] 63 STC 391 (Vinay Cotton Waste Company Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu) and [1993] 90 STC 1 (Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and submitted that the decision relied on by the First Appellate Authority reported in [1967] 19 STC 35 (The State of Mysore Vs. Guduthur Thimmappa and Son and another) is a distinguishable one and that the issues raised therein were totally different.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1