Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher (P) Ltd. Etc on 14 March, 2000 cites

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Pyare Lal Malhotra Etc on 19 January, 1976

Here in the present case, the goods that are brought into taxation are enumerated in Entry 40 of the notification dated September 7, 1981 to which we have adverted to earlier. Each one of the items enumerates various goods, which could be brought to tax. The purpose of sales tax is to levy tax on sale of goods of each variety and not the sale of the substance out of which they may have been made. As soon as separate commercial commodities emerge or come into existence, they become separately, taxable goods for purposes of sales tax. Where commercial goods, without change of their identity as such goods, are merely subjected to some processing or finishing, they may remain commercially the same goods which cannot be taxed again, in a series of sales, so long as they retain their identity as goods of a particular type. We are fortified in this view by the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra, [1978] 2 SCC 552. What is to be seen in the present case is whether stone gitti, chips, etc. continue to be identifiable with the stone boulders, which have been bought by the dealer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 204 - M H Beg - Full Document

Reliable Rocks Builders And Suppliers vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 31 July, 1980

The view taken by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is that the goods continue to be stone and they are not commercially different goods to be identified differently for the purposes of sales tax. The decision relied on by minority view in the Tribunal in Reliance Rocks Builders & Suppliers v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 49 STC 110, turned on the concept of consumption of goods for the purpose of bringing into existence new goods. In that case the Court was not concerned with an entry of the nature with which we are concerned in the present case. Where the dealer had brought into existence new commercial goods by consuming the builders to bring out small pieces of stone, it was held that such activity attracted purchase tax. In the present case, however, stone, as such, and gitti and articles of stones are all of similar nature though by size they may be different. Even if gitti, kankar, stone-ballast, etc. may all be looked upon as separate in commercial character from stone boulders offered for sale in the market, yet it cannot be presumed that Entry 40 of the notification is intended to describe the same as not stone at all. In fact the term 'stone' is wide enough to include the various forms such as gitti, kankar, stone ballast. In that view of the matter, we think that the view taken by the majority of the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court stands to reason. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the same.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1