Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.50 seconds)
Ahmedabad Silk Factory Private Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat ... on 12 November, 1964
cites
Section 2 in Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957
Kailash Nath & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 22 February, 1957
9. So much on principle. Turning now to the authorities, the first decision to which we mist refer is the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. ([1957] 8 S.T.C. 358), on which strong reliance was placed by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the revenue. The question arose in that case in regard to a notification issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The notification provided that with effect from 1st December, 1949, the provisions of section 3 of the Act shall not apply to sales of cotton cloth or yarn manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, made on or after 1st December, 1949, with a view to export such cloth or yarn outside the territories of India on condition that such cloth or yarn was actually exported and proof of such actual export was furnished. The petitioners who owned a textile mill sold certain quantities of cotton cloth manufactured by them to their constituents who thereafter printed such cloth with hand-made apparatus and exported it overseas as hand-printed cloth. The question arose whether the petitioners were entitled to exemption under the notification. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the revenue to defeat the claim of the petitioners to exemption was that the goods which were exported by the constituents were different from the goods sold by the petitioners to the constituents and it could not, therefore, be said that the cloth or yarn sold by the petitioners was actually exported. This argument was negatived by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that the words "such cloth or yarn" meant cloth or yarn manufactured in Uttar Pradesh and sold and that it had nothing to do with the transformation by printing and designs on the cloth. The cloth exported was the same as the cloth sold with this variation or difference that the colour had changed by printing and processing. This decision, therefore, turned on the words used in the notification and since what was required by the notification was that the cloth which was manufactured by the petitioners in Uttar Pradesh and sold to their constituents should be actually exported by them, the terms of the notification were satisfied so long as the cloth actually exported by the constituents was the same as the cloth manufactured by the petitioners in Uttar Pradesh and sold to the constituents. This decision does not lay down that even after processing, grey cloth remains the same kind of goods. Once processing takes place and grey cloth is bleached, dyed and printed, the finished cloth cannot be said to be the same commercial commodity as the grey cloth. As a result of being subjected to the process of bleaching, dyeing and printing, the grey cloth is turned into a different commercial commodity, namely, finished cloth and when finished cloth is sold, it would not be correct to say that the sale is of the same commercial commodity as grey cloth.
Section 3 in Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
G.R. Kulkarni vs The State on 16 January, 1957
To the same effect we find the decision in G. R. Kulkarni v. The State ([1957] 8 S.T.C. 294). There the question was whether the breaking of boulders into metal was "manufacture" within the meaning of section 2(i)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1947. Hidayatullah, C.J., delivering the judgment of the court observed that the essence of manufacture is the changing of one object into another for the purposes of making it marketable and since in the breaking of boulders into metal, there was some process, manual though it be, for the purpose of shaping the stones into another marketable commodity, there was a manufacturing process performed by the assessee within the meaning of section 2(i)(a) of the Act.