Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
The Commissioner, Trade Tax vs S/S Industrial Gas Company on 12 August, 2005 cites

Harbans Lal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 15 October, 1992

It may be noted here that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided a number of writ petitions through the judgment delivered in the case of Harbansh Lal v. State of Haryana. The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by those assessees who were dealers of hiring shuttering to builders and contractors who used it in the course of construction of buildings. The dealers of industrial gas and cylinders were not appellants before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the controversy before the Supreme Court was confined and limited to the extent of transfer of right to use shuttering materials to the builders and contractors. The Supreme Court therein rejected the submission of the appellant that there must be legal transfer of goods or that the transaction must be like a lease to deem the transfer as sale. It has come to the conclusion where there is transfer of right to use the goods for consideration the requirement of law is satisfied and there is a deemed sale. It was held that transfer of shuttering for consideration to builders and building contractors for use in the construction of buildings is a deemed sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 32 - G N Ray - Full Document

Industrial Oxygen Company Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 December, 1991

This contention was repelled. By way of passing remark it has been observed that the detention of the cylinder beyond particular period shall fall within the definition of "goods". Precisely the point that the sum charged for detention of the cylinder beyond the stipulated period would amount the right of transfer to use the cylinder or not was not raised therein. Similarly in the case of Industrial Oxygene Company Pvt. Limited (Supra) the High Court observed that the dealer itself treated the receipt as rent charges which were collected by it from the customers as hire charges.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2002

5. The learned counsel for the dealer opp.party has placed reliance upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in West Coast Industrial Gases Limited v. State of Kerala 2003 NTN (Vol.23) 964. In this case the dealer was engaged in the business of sale of industrial gases which are filled in cylinders. The purchasers were required to return the empty cylinders within ten days failing which they were required to pay certain charges by way of penalty. In this fact situation it has been held that the dealer had only sold the industrial gas in cylinders and provision for payment of rent provided on the reverse of the sale bill was only to ensure that the cylinders are returned promptly by the customers. In para 6 it has been held that "the incidental receipt of certain amount by way of rent for the delayed return of the cylinders by the customers will not fall within the meaning of expressions " transfer of right to use any goods".
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs M/S. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd on 6 March, 2002

7. The observation of the Supreme Court though made in a different context in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Spat Nigam Limited 2002 UPTC 273 has some bearing to the facts of the present case. The dealer supplied certain machinery to the contractors and collected hire charges. The High Court on the basis of the terms and conditions in the agreement came to the conclusion that the transaction did not involve the transfer of right to use machinery in favour of the contractor. The judgment of the High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court on the finding that the contractor was not free to make the use of machinery for the works other than the project work of the dealer and as such there was no transfer of right to use the machinery. Although the contractor was made responsible for the custody of the machinery while it was on the site but it did not militate against the dealer's possession and control of the machinery.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 64 - S V Patil - Full Document
1