Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)State Of Bihar vs Chrestain Mica Industries Ltd. on 3 July, 1956
The definition does nothing more than clear the ground, so that no dispute may hereafter exist. Now, the gist of the matter in this case is that according to the definition of 'taxable quantum' the present assessee would be liable to pay a tax on a turnover of Rs. 5,000/- if he was himself manufacturing or producing any goods for the purposes of sale: (See the definition of 'taxable quantum' in Section 2 (i) (a) of the Sales-tax Act.)
The contention of the assessee is that he was neither manufacturing nor producing any goods for the purposes of sale. He contends that breaking boulders into gitti is not a manufacturing process and that gittis are not 'produced' within the meaning given to it by the definition. He relies upon -- 'North Bengal Stores, Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, Bengal', 1950-1 STC 157 (A); and -- 'State of Bihar v. Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd., 1956-7 STC 626: (AIR 1957 Pat 184 (B).
1