Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P. And Ors. ... vs Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Areti And ... on 5 August, 1992
On the other hand, in the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, 87 STC 196 (supra) the commission agents (the assessees) were under a contractual obligation to transport the goods which they purchased in U.P to their Ex. U.P. principals. Hence, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is clearly distinguishable, because in the present case we find that the petitioner was under no legal obligation (whether express or implied, and whether statutory, contractual or otherwise) to export the sandalwood to Karnataka. The export to Karnataka by the petitioner was purely voluntary, and not under any obligation of any kind, express or implied.
South India Viscose Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 1981
12. The decision of the Supreme Court in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, is in our opinion distinguishable. In paragraph-11 of the said decision, the Supreme Court observed: -
Union Of India & Anr vs K. G. Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd. & Others on 6 March, 1979
10. No doubt in Union of India Vs. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that a sale would be an inter-State sale even if the contract of sale does not itself provide for the movement of the goods from one State to another, provided, however, such movement was a result of a covenant in the contract of sale or was an incidence of the contract. In the present case, it cannot even be said that the movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka was a result of any implied covenant in the contract of the sale or was an incidence of the contract. In our opinion, the movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka was wholly independent of the contract of sale. The Tamil Nadu Government did not enter into any covenant, express or implied, with the petitioner that after the petitioner purchases the sandalwood in the auction sale, he will have to transport the goods to Karnataka. There was also no statutory rule or Government notification requiring the petitioner to export the goods to Karnataka after purchasing them at the auction sale.
Section 8 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of A.P vs National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors on 22 April, 2002
Hence the sales in question do not fulful the very first requirement, as laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of A.P v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (supra).
The Co-Operative Sugar (Chittur) Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 April, 1993
8. In our opinion, the sales in question in the present bunch of cases cannot be regarded as inter-State sales. No doubt, it is not necessary that the contract of sale must expressely provide for the movement of the goods to another State, as held in Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 90 STC 1 (supra).
W.A. Shah Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs District Forest Officer And Ors. on 23 August, 2001
However, subsequently the petitioner received a communication of the 3rd respondent - Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai dated 24.07.2003 stating that the sales were local sales as per the judgment of this Court reported in W.A. Shah Enterprises (P) Limited Vs. District Forest Officer, (Supra). The local sales attract sales tax at 12% whereas the inter-State sales attract tax at 4% under Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 because the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In view of the above development the petitioner was compelled to pay tax at 12% with surcharge in respect of the sale held on 11.09.2003. The petitioner remitted the amount under protest by letter dated 14.09.2003 because delivery was refused unless tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was remitted. The petitioner further alleged that being a manufacturer of soap and detergents in the State of Karnataka, it purchases the sandalwood solely for the purpose of transport and consumption in its factory at Bangalore. Hence, the purchase is in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. It is alleged that the petitioner participated in the auction through its senior officer for the purpose of bidding for sandalwood, taking delivery in Tamil Nadu and transporting it into Karnataka, and the sale and movement are integral without possibility of diversion. It is further alleged that the petitioner bid only for the purpose of consumption in the State of Karnataka and the very delivery and transportation is covered by the Transport Pass in Form-41 issued under Rule 155 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, Form-39 issued under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and permit in Form-I issued by the 1st respondent - District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam or his delegates, the goods being sold and transported through a designated route to a destination within a specified time for which proof has to be submitted to the authorities, and the delivery and transportation is statutorily governed. It is alleged that the petitioner neither contemplates, nor effects diversion of the goods purchased for consumption in the State of Karnataka.