Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Article 269 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956
Section 3 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Tata Iron And Steel Co., Limited,Bombay vs S. R. Sarkar And Others on 29 August, 1960
In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.R.
Sarkar(1) it was held that a sale occasions the movement of
goods from one State to another within s. 3 (a) of the
Central Sales Tax Act, when the movement is the result of a
covenant or incident of the contract of sale". That the
cement concerned in the disputed sales was actually moved
from another State into Mysore in not denied. The
respondents only contend that the movement was not the
result of a covenant in or an incident of the contract of
sale.
Smt. Ujjam Bai vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 28 April, 1961
It was however said that the petitions were incompetent in
view of our decision in Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (1) in as much as the Taxing Officers under the
Mysore Acts had jurisdiction to decide whether a particular
sale was an Inter-State sale or not and any error committed
by them as quasi-judicial tribunals in exercise of such
jurisdiction did not offend any fundamental right. But we
think that that case its clearly distinguishable. Das, J.,
there stated that "if a quasi-judicial authority acts
without jurisdiction or wrongly assumes jurisdiction by
committing an error as to a collateral fact and the
resultant action threatens or violates a fundamental right,
the question of enforcement of that right arises and a
petition under Art. 32 will lie."' He also said that where a
statute is intra-vires but the action taken is with. out
jurisdiction, then a petition under Art. 32 would be
competent. That is the case here. There is no dispute that
the Taxing Officer had no jurisdiction to tax inter-State
sales, there being a constitutional prohibition against a
State taxing them. He could not give himself jurisdiction
to do so by deciding a collateral fact wrongly. That is
what he seems to have done here. Therefore we think
(1) (1963) 1 S.C.R. 778.
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1