Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Shree Hanuman Rice Mill vs The State Of Orissa on 4 April, 1988 cites

State Of Orissa vs Orissa Small Industries Corporation on 28 February, 1987

4. So far as the second is concerned, the matter is no longer res integra in view of the decisions reported in [1987] 67 STC 262 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Orissa Small Industries Corporation) and [1988] 68 STC 153 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Ramnarayan Sitaram). It was held that under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, form F was not conclusive proof that the inter-State transfers were otherwise than by way of sale. The assessing officer has the jurisdiction to make further enquiry as to whether the transactions covered by form F were sales, or mere transfers as claimed by the dealer. The dealer might thus prove his claim in any other manner also. Moreover, the word "shall" used in Sub-rules (5) and (7) of Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, being in a procedural statute, could not be held to be mandatory, when non-cornpliance was not to have adverse effect. Learned counsel appearing for both parties did not dispute the above proposition. Therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative.
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - R C Patnaik - Full Document

Ganesh Trading Co., Karnal vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 25 April, 1973

In the first case, placing reliance on [1973] 32 STC 623 (SC) (Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana), and some other decisions, it was held that paddy and rice are two different commodities. It was further held that by virtue of Section 8(2A) read with Section 15(c) of the CST Act and items 21 and 22 of the Third Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act read with explanation III thereto, where rice procured out of tax suffered paddy was sold in the course of inter-State trade, the Central sales tax payable on rice should be reduced by the amount of Andhra Pradesh tax paid on the corresponding purchase of paddy. In the second case, it was held that if an assessee purchases paddy referred to in Section 14(i)(i) of the CST Act and pays tax under the State law, the tax leviable under the Act on rice procured out of such paddy and sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has to be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such paddy by the State law by virtue of the provisions of Section 15(c) of the CST Act. In this view of the matter, according to provisions of Section 8(2A) read with Section 15(c), tax was rightly calculated at twice the rate applicable for sale of rice to unregistered dealers in course of inter-State trade and commerce. Therefore, levy of tax at the rate of 8 per cent is correct. The question, however, seems to have been framed incorrectly and in a misleading manner. It is reframed as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 89 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next