Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.62 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Tata Iron And Steel Co., Limited,Bombay vs S. R. Sarkar And Others on 29 August, 1960
passed before the movement of the goods or not, and this was
because according to the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co.
v. S. R. Sarkar(1) it did not matter whether the property
passed in one State or the other.
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 25 July, 1961
The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. A. Ranganadham
Chetty, invited us to hold that the observations of Shah,
J., in Tata Iron and Steel Co. (1) case were obiter, and to
consider the question afresh. We are unable to reopen the
question at this stage. Shah, J., was interpreting s. 3 of
the Act, and although the Court was principally concerned
with the interpretation of s. 3(b), it was necessary to
consider the interpretation of s. 3(a) in order to arrive at
the correct interpretation of s. 3(b). Further these
observations were approved in The Cement Marketing Co. of
India v. The State of Mysore(3), The State Trading
Corporation of India, v. The State of Mysore(4) and
Singareni Collieries Co. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
Hyderabad(2). In the State Trading Corporation(4) case, in
so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 was
concerned, this Court applied the principles laid down in
Tata Iron and Steel Co.(1) case. Accordingly we hold that
the High Court was wrong in holding that before a sale could
be said to have occasioned import it is necessary that the
sale should have preceded the import.
The Cement Marketing Co. Of India ... vs The State Of Mysore And Anr. on 21 March, 1960
The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. A. Ranganadham
Chetty, invited us to hold that the observations of Shah,
J., in Tata Iron and Steel Co. (1) case were obiter, and to
consider the question afresh. We are unable to reopen the
question at this stage. Shah, J., was interpreting s. 3 of
the Act, and although the Court was principally concerned
with the interpretation of s. 3(b), it was necessary to
consider the interpretation of s. 3(a) in order to arrive at
the correct interpretation of s. 3(b). Further these
observations were approved in The Cement Marketing Co. of
India v. The State of Mysore(3), The State Trading
Corporation of India, v. The State of Mysore(4) and
Singareni Collieries Co. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
Hyderabad(2). In the State Trading Corporation(4) case, in
so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 was
concerned, this Court applied the principles laid down in
Tata Iron and Steel Co.(1) case. Accordingly we hold that
the High Court was wrong in holding that before a sale could
be said to have occasioned import it is necessary that the
sale should have preceded the import.
State Trading Corporationof India Ltd vs State Of Mysore on 28 August, 1962
The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. A. Ranganadham
Chetty, invited us to hold that the observations of Shah,
J., in Tata Iron and Steel Co. (1) case were obiter, and to
consider the question afresh. We are unable to reopen the
question at this stage. Shah, J., was interpreting s. 3 of
the Act, and although the Court was principally concerned
with the interpretation of s. 3(b), it was necessary to
consider the interpretation of s. 3(a) in order to arrive at
the correct interpretation of s. 3(b). Further these
observations were approved in The Cement Marketing Co. of
India v. The State of Mysore(3), The State Trading
Corporation of India, v. The State of Mysore(4) and
Singareni Collieries Co. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
Hyderabad(2). In the State Trading Corporation(4) case, in
so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 was
concerned, this Court applied the principles laid down in
Tata Iron and Steel Co.(1) case. Accordingly we hold that
the High Court was wrong in holding that before a sale could
be said to have occasioned import it is necessary that the
sale should have preceded the import.
Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Management Of The Hindusthan ... vs Bhagwan Dass on 26 November, 1964
Before we deal with the merits of the appeals, we must
dispose of two preliminary objections raised by Mr.
Ranganadham Chetty,
356
on behalf of the respondents. Basing himself on Management
of Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Dass (1) he
urged that ,the assessee should have filed an application
for leave to appeal before the High Court before applying
for special leave. We see no force in this objection. It
is common ground that the Madras High Court had at the
relevant time consistently taken the view that no
application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court Jay before
the High Court in matters involving revenue. In these
circumstances we dispense with the requirement of Order
XIII, r. 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, and overrule the
objection. The second preliminary objection raised by him
was that the assessee should have filed four appeals and not
two appeals because there were four revision petitions
before the High Court. We see no force in this objection
also. Two revisions were filed by the assessee and two by
the State in respect of two assessment orders and they were
disposed of by one common judgment. The subject matter of
the four revisions were two assessments, one under the
Madras General Sales Tax Act and the other under the Central
Sales Tax Act. In our opinion, the assessee was quite right
in filing two appeals before this Court.
1