Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)State Of Tamil Nadu vs Anandam Viswanathan on 24 January, 1989
These involved not only expense but also confidentiality. The supply of paper and ink in the circumstances of this case was only incidental. As a result the amount charged by the petitioner for the printing of lottery tickets from different customers could not be included in the taxable turnover. It is undoubtedly true that in Viswanathan's case (supra) the cost of paper was included in the taxable turnover but this was only on account of the fact that "the demand notice prepared by the assessee showed the cost of paper separately......" Such is not the position in the present case.
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Guntur Tobaccos Ltd on 18 November, 1964
15. The rule in this behalf was initially enunciated by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos, 16 S.T.C. 240.
The Court Press Job Branch, Salem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 February, 1983
"The primary difference between a contract for work or service and a contract for sale is that in the former there is in the person performing or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole, notwithstanding that a part or even the whole of the material used by him may have been his property. Where the finished product supplied to a particular customer is not a commercial commodity in the sense that it cannot be sold in the market to any other person, the transaction is only a works contract. See the observations in Court Press Job Branch, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 54 S.T.C. 382 (Mad.)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Ratna Fine Arts Printing Press on 31 October, 1983
and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Raina Fine Arts. Printing Press, (1984) 56 S.T.C. 77 (M.P.).
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
In fact, this is the view expressed by the Full Bench in conclusion 3 and 4 in the East India Cotton Manufacturing Company's case (supra).
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Government of India Act, 1935
Gannon Daunkerley & Co. & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 17 November, 1992
19. Under Entry 54 in List II, the State Legislature is competent to provide for the levy of "taxes on the sale or purchase of goods". The taxing event is the sale or purchase of goods. However, when the sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter state trade and commerce, the power to levy taxes vests exclusively in the Parliament. The State Legislature has no competence to provide for the levy of tax in such a case even though a sale or purchase of goods may be there. Pursuant to the decision in Gannon Dunkerley's Case (supra), no tax could be levied in case of goods used in the execution of a works contract. This was so because the execution of a works contract did not amount to sale or purchase of goods. It was in order to overcome this handicap that the 46th amendment was made in the Constitution and it was specifically provided that tax on the sale or purchase of goods shall include a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. Resultantly, a fiction can be introduced by Legislation that the goods involved in the execution of a works contract have been sold or purchased. However, the limitation on the competence of the State Legislature in respect of even a fictional sale which takes place in the course of inter-state trade and commerce, subsists. As such the State Legislature is not competent to provide for the levy of tax on such a fictional sale when it takes place in the course of interstate trade and commerce.
1