Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)M/S. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool on 18 October, 1960
This is a vital distinction between the case in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1960] 11 S.T.C. 827 (S.C.)
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 1969
To give sense to this rule, we have to understand this as meaning that even in cases where the freight formed part of the price, it can be excluded from the total turnover in cases where it is specified and charged for separately and by not including it in the price of the goods sold. In other words, by merely mentioning in the invoice the price of the goods sold separately and by charging for freight separately, even if the two together really formed part of the price of the goods sold, the exemption can be claimed. The submission of counsel is that these conditions have been satisfied in this case. We are not dealing with this argument of counsel because we feel that the argument on the second point has to be accepted in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the decision in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of A.P. [1969] 24 S.T.C. 487 at 489 (S.C.) The facts considered by the Supreme Court are identical to that with which we have to deal with here. That the invoice included the cost as well as the freight is admitted. It is not also separately shown there. Reliance has been placed on the terms of business. The clause relating to deliveries provides thus:
State Of Tamil Nadu vs M/S Burmah Shell Oil Storage & ... on 10 October, 1972
11. Admittedly, the assessee is carrying on a business. If its activity relating to the sale of the commodities, which we have mentioned above, amounts to an activity incidental to the business under the terms of the definition of "business", as amended, and contained in Section 2(d)(ii), it (the assessee) will be carrying on a business and, when the definition of the term "dealer" contained in Section 2(g) is read with the definition of the word "business", it is clear that the assessee would be a dealer and under Section 3, the assessee will be liable to tax. Section 2(d)(ii) mentions "any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern". It was with reference to this provision that the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd. [1973] 31 S.T.C. 426 at 432 (S.C.) observed:
L.M.S. Sadak Thamby And Co. vs The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ... on 18 April, 1969
14. From these facts, the counsel contended that when once raw hides and skins had been converted into tanned hides and skins, the tax imposed on raw hides and skins by item 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is shifted to the latter transaction of sale of the tanned hides and skins. The assessee got inspiration for this contention from the decision of this Court in Sadak Thamby & Co. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1969] 24 S.T.C. 468. We are not called upon, with great respect, to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decision for we think that decision related to a case where both items 7(a) and 7(b) of the Second Schedule to the Act were attracted. For items 7(a) and 7(b) to be attracted, there must be a local purchase of raw hides and skins and a local sale of the tanned hides skins. This was what was meant and dealt with is clear from the following sentence in that decision:
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Board Of Revenue Etc vs A. M. Ansari Etc on 17 March, 1976
10. The counsel for the revision petitioner, however, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue v. Ansari [1976] 38 S.T.C. 577 (S.C.) and contended that the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of sale and purchase must be satisfied in order that a person could be said to be carrying on the business of selling goods. The question therein was whether the forest department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh was carrying on the business of selling various items of forest produce. The court, after considering the facts, came to the conclusion that the Government cannot be said to be carrying on the business.