Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.24 seconds)
Batchu Subba Rao And Company vs Commercial Tax Officer on 13 December, 1958 cites

The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953

Therefore, if the last of the aforesaid theories were to be adopted, then either no State would be able to tax, or all having the requisite nexus would be able to do so. But this, in our opinion, is the very mischief which the Constitution-makers wished to avoid and that, as we understand the majority judgment in the Bombay case, was their view also. So that view can be placed on one side. On any one of the other views the situs would have to be fixed artificially in one place and then one would have to apply the logic of he majority decision and hold that as soon as the situs is determined to be in one place by judicial fiction, i.e., a fiction enunciated by judicial decision, the inter-State character of the transaction must cease. The majority hold that this is the result when the situs is placed in only one State, namely, the delivery State, because of the fiction which the Explanation creates. The same result would have to follow logically if the situs were to be established by judicial fiction instead of by a constitutional one."It is evident from this passage also that the restrictions placed on the taxing power of States in relation to outside sales determined by the fictional or notional situs in the Explanation do not go beyond what the Explanation contemplates. The cases not hit by the other bans and not falling within the Explanation are, of course, to be dealt according to the law of the State recognising the doctrine of sufficient territorial nexus.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 339 - M P Sastri - Full Document

The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954

16. But it would appear from the passage in Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955 6 S.T.C. 446) cited by us in an earlier part of out judgment only such cases of outside sales as are covered by the Explanation fall within the ban of Article 286(1)(a). Needless to say that the ban under Article 286 was intended for only such sales as were within the taxing powers of the States as contemplated by Articles 245 and 246(3) read with Entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule because the sales which are not at all amenable to taxation because of all their component parts having taken place outside did not require any such ban. It is also plain that whatever the ban that may be imposed, will be operative only to the extent warranted by its clear language and its necessary implication. It follows therefore that if all the conditions of Explanation are not satisfied the nature of the sale involving inter-State elements would have to be determined on the language of the valid enactment fixing the situs of sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

Poppatlal Shah vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India And ... on 30 March, 1953

At any rate, the decision in Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras places the matter beyond controversy. Thus it is clear to our mind that in cases beyond the restrictions of Article 286 of the Constitution, the Sales Tax Act will have its complete operation. It is argued that the Division Bench of this Court in the case referred to above had by the expression "general law" intended to mean the Indian Sale of Goods Act and not the Sales Tax Act. It admits of no doubt that the provisions of the Sales of Goods Act only relate to the time when the property in the goods passes from the seller to the buyer and do not fix the locality where sale takes place.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 192 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1   2 3 Next