Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.46 seconds)
Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes vs The State Trading Corporation Of India ... on 8 February, 1972
cites
Section 8 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range ... on 28 February, 1967
12. As stated earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made reference to two decisions, one of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Nathani Brothers [1968] 21 S.T.C. 465, and the other of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1967] 20 S.T.C. 345, for the proposition that unless the movement of the goods outside the State was occasioned by reason of a contract for such sale, such a movement could not be called a movement in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Nathani Brothers on 18 July, 1967
12. As stated earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made reference to two decisions, one of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Nathani Brothers [1968] 21 S.T.C. 465, and the other of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1967] 20 S.T.C. 345, for the proposition that unless the movement of the goods outside the State was occasioned by reason of a contract for such sale, such a movement could not be called a movement in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Company, ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, ... on 10 April, 1964
Their Lordships struck a note of caution by reference to the case of Endupuri Narasimham and Son v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 S.T.C. 282 (S.C.), that a purchase made inside the State, for sale outside the State, cannot itself be held to be in the course of inter-State trade, but where, quoting from the decision in the case of Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulatn [1964] 15 S.T.C. 753 (S.C.), "a sale in the course of export predicates a connection between the sale and export, the two activities being so integrated that the connection between the two cannot be voluntarily interrupted, without a breach of the contract or the compulsion arising from the nature of the transaction..." or as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co., Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1970] 26 S.T.C. 351 (S.C.), "...to occasion export there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and the actual exportation that each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding it..." Such a sale would be in the course of an export. The principle that where the first sale cannot be dissociated from the subsequent sale, both of them constituting together an integrated activity for carrying the goods to outside the State, would equally apply to cases of inter-State sales.
Tata Engineering And Locomotive ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 24 February, 1967
Their Lordships struck a note of caution by reference to the case of Endupuri Narasimham and Son v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 S.T.C. 282 (S.C.), that a purchase made inside the State, for sale outside the State, cannot itself be held to be in the course of inter-State trade, but where, quoting from the decision in the case of Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulatn [1964] 15 S.T.C. 753 (S.C.), "a sale in the course of export predicates a connection between the sale and export, the two activities being so integrated that the connection between the two cannot be voluntarily interrupted, without a breach of the contract or the compulsion arising from the nature of the transaction..." or as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co., Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1970] 26 S.T.C. 351 (S.C.), "...to occasion export there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and the actual exportation that each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding it..." Such a sale would be in the course of an export. The principle that where the first sale cannot be dissociated from the subsequent sale, both of them constituting together an integrated activity for carrying the goods to outside the State, would equally apply to cases of inter-State sales.
The Commissioner Of Sales-Tax,Eastern ... vs Husenali Adamji And Co on 21 April, 1959
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the said case observed by reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Husenali Adamji and Co. [1959] 10 S.T.C. 297 at p. 308 (S.C.), that "...it is only when a contract contemplates delivery of goods in another State that the sale could be said to be inter-State...." The passage following thereafter, however, clarified the context in which that observation was made.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Shri Allwyn Cooper on 26 November, 1965
Referring to one of the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Shri Allwyn Cooper, Katangjhiri (unreported decision) [1968] 21 S.T.C. 417 it was observed:-"This observation clearly indicates that the movement of the goods was by reason of the sale and for the purpose of giving delivery of the goods to the purchasers at the places outside the State..." Thus, although in the foregoing passage the existence of contract for delivery of goods in another State was stressed at, in the latter paragraph it was only the movement of the goods by reason of the sale which was considered an essential ingredient to determine the nature of the sale. Similarly, the decision of the Calcutta High Court can only be understood as saying that the movement of the goods must be occasioned by reason of the sale or purchase in order to be called an inter-State sale within the meaning of Section 3(a) of the Act. Where, however, such movement was not "in the course of" inter-State trade but "for the purpose of" inter-State trade it would not be a sale in the course of inter-State trade. In my opinion, therefore, these decisions do not lay down the principles which the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to read in them.
The Cement Marketing Co., Of Indialtd. ... vs The State Of Mysore And Another on 28 August, 1962
As to whether the existence of a covenant under the contract to move the goods outside the State was necessary in order to constitute an inter-State sale, the same was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. v. State of Mysore [1963] 14 S.T.C. 175 (S.C.). In that case, the taxing officer had found that the contract of sale did not provide that the supply be made from a factory situated outside Mysore, but it was a matter of convenience for the supplier to make supplies from places outside Mysore State. The Supreme Court held that though such a covenant was absent from the contract itself the other circumstances connected with the sale including the permit issued by the Government involved such an inter-State sale. As observed by me earlier, each case has to be decided on its own facts and notwithstanding the absence of specific contract to send the goods outside the State, if the facts and circumstances denote that perforce the goods purchased have to be sent by the seller outside State, such a sale would be in the course of inter-State trade.