Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 55 (0.42 seconds)Section 46 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Factories Act, 1948
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
State Of Gujarat vs M/S. Raipur Manufacturing Company Ltd on 30 September, 1966
47. The other decision referred to be the learned Judges viz., the decision in the case of The State of Gujarat vs. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd., (supra) was also of a similar nature. In that case, the Supreme Court held that where a company which was (carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling cotton textiles, disposes of miscellaneous old and discarded items such as stores, machinery, iron scrap, cans, boxes, cotton ropes, rags, etc. it could not be said to carry on the business of selling those items of goods, as the fact that the sales of those items were frequent and their volume was large does not lead to the presumption that when those items were acquired there was an intention to carry on the business in those discarded items, and also because the discarded goods were not by-products or subsidiary products of or arising in the course of the manufacturing process. It was in that context that the Supreme Court observed as follows :-
Section 2 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. vs State Of Orissa on 24 July, 1974
The learned Judges in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) treated the above observations of the Supreme Courts as laying down that "an activity integrated with the business is to be treated as a component part of the business". With due respect, we are unable to agree with that view as the observation of the Supreme Court was made in an entirely different context. The Supreme Court referred to the "integrated activity of buying and disposal", and not to the buying of tanning bark being an activity integrated with the business of tanning and selling tanned skins. The Supreme Court only emphasised that since the tanning bark was bought for use with a view to make profit out of the integrated activity of buying hides and skins, tanning them, and selling tanned skins, the purchase amount of the tanning bark was to be included in the turnover. On the other hand, the question of sales in the canteens being liable to tax is different. In the case before the learned Judges, the main activity of the assessed was mining limestone from a quarry. The activity of running a canteen was not, by its very nature, "integrated with the mining business" or a "component part" of the mining business. It is true that the running of the canteens was obligatory under the Mines Rules. Merely because the said activity of running a canteen was made obligatory by the rules, it could not, in our opinion, be regarded as "integrated" with the mining business or as "a component part" of the mining business.