Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Sharda Electric Battery Works on 26 July, 1978 cites

Jupiter Battery Works vs Commissioner, Sales Tax on 7 February, 1972

The decision in Jupiter Battery's case 1972 U.P.T.C. 224 is no longer appropriate for the assessment year in question, as the notifications of 31st March, 1956, and 10th May, 1956, do not survive, and that decision was based upon these notifications which had the words "including batteries" in the relevant entries. The decision of the revising authority based on the old entries does not appear to be correct.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Amar Radio Cabinet Works on 7 February, 1968

8. The question then is as to whether the turnover of motor batteries was taxable as spare parts of motor vehicles. The contents of the words "spare parts" have been the subject-matter of a number of decisions of various High Courts including one of ours. The Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Amar Radio Cabinet Works [1968] 22 S.T.C. 63, where the question was as to whether radio cabinets and loudspeaker cabinets were spare parts, has held that spare parts connotes a part which requires replacement in the ordinary course, on account of wear and tear, and as an extra item for use in an emergency. Radio cabinets were held not to fall within the expression "spare parts".
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Bajoria Halwasiya Service Station vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 8 December, 1969

In Bajoria Halwasiya Service Station v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1970] 26 S.T.C. 108, a question arose whether bus bodies were spare parts of motor vehicles. Gulati, J., who spoke for the court, put the test to be applied pithily, when he observed that, in the popular sense, the term "spare part", when used with reference to motor vehicles, is a duplicate part of motor vehicles kept in readiness to replace loss, breakage, etc. Motor batteries are not normally kept as an extra to replace an existing battery. In fact keeping an extra battery would ,be an useless surplusage, as in due course of time there will be diminution in its voltage and it cannot be utilised in the case of loss or breakdown of the existing battery. Motor batteries are thus not a spare part of a motor vehicle.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1