Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)

Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 18 December, 1987

Mr.Sonpal, therefore, submitted that applying this test where a word has a scientific or technical meaning and also an ordinary meaning then the ordinary meaning must be given consideration while deciding the classification under the Sales Tax Laws. 21 Mr.Sonpal further submitted that the Applicant has laid much stress on scientific definitions of the words and the expert opinion. According to him, under the Sales Tax laws the common man's view has to be preferred but there is no bar to refer to technical or scientific character and in large number of cases the dictionary meaning or technical literature were considered by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:09 ::: *11* Courts while interpreting the schedule entries. But in all those cases before applying this test the Court held that while construing the word which was of technical or scientific character, its scientific or technical meaning required to be assigned. The steam is not a word of scientific or technical character, but commonly understood as a steam. He further submitted that in the Sales Tax Laws, the words which are not of technical expressions or words of art, but are words of everyday use, must be understood and given a meaning, not in their technical or scientific sense, but in a sense as understood in common parlance. The particular terms used by the legislature in the determination of articles are to be understood according to the common commercial understanding of those terms used and not in their scientific and technical sense. For this purpose, Mr.Sonpal relied on the judgment in case of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Company Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others, 1988(68) STC 324.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 375 - Full Document

Haran D. Manufacturing Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 1993

27 The Gujarat High Court in the matter of Haran D. Manufacturing Company Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 (91) STC 130 held that if any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it was defined. But in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. Paragraph No.11 of the said judgment reads thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - M B Shah - Full Document

M/S. Union Carbide India Ltd vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 March, 1995

(HC) 91 STC 476 17 Gupta Agencies Vs. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:09 ::: *7* State of Punjab (HC) 92 STC 543 18 Quality Chemicals Vs. State of Gujarat (HC) 94 STC 450 19 Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. State of A.P. 98 STC 01 (SC) 20 Electro Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (HC) 98 STC 116 21 Bombay Chemical Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - J S Verma - Full Document
1   2 Next