Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 85 (0.35 seconds)The Orissa Luxury Tax Act, 1995
Section 2 in The Orissa Luxury Tax Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
State Of Madras vs N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar on 18 April, 1968
Similarly, exporter has been defined in Section 2(o-2)(iii) as any person who supplies tobacco from a place within the State to any place outside the State, whether by way of sale or otherwise. Reading of these provisions along with charging section would show that if the pan masala containing tobacco (gutka) is to be brought from outside in the State of Maharashtra and supplied within Maharashtra, luxury tax is attracted because of Section 3A. However, if it is brought from the other State to the State of Maharashtra and supplied to any other States, no luxury tax is attracted because of Sections 3B(2)(b) and (c). If it is supplied within the State of Maharashtra, i.e., by way of intra-State transactions, then the luxury tax is attracted because of Section 3A. However, if it is supplied from Maharashtra to any other outside State, no luxury tax is attracted because of Sections 3B(2)(b) and (c). Similarly, if the goods are supplied from outside Maharashtra to any other outside States directly, no luxury tax is attracted even if the goods happened to pass through the territory of Maharashtra because none of the provisions of the Act intervenes in such transactions. It is thus clear that the general rate applicable to the goods locally made and made on those imported from other States is the same. Therefore, one fails to understand as to how Article 301 would get attracted and much less violated. At this juncture, it would be proper to refer to the observations made in N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar case , Mr. Justice Bachawat after referring to several cases observed as follows :