Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948
Section 8 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Lucknow vs D. S. Bist & Ors on 11 September, 1979
(v) Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow v. D. S. Bist . - The question for consideration before the Supreme Court in this case was whether tea-leaves ceased to be agricultural produce after they were subjected to certain processes for the purpose of making tea-leaves fit for transporting and marketing. Notwithstanding the process of withering, crushing and roasting to which the raw tea-leaves plucked from the plants were subjected to, the Supreme Court held that in its basic nature it continued to be agricultural produce.
Indodan Milk Products Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 20 July, 1973
(vii) Indodan Milk Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. ([1974] 33 S.T.C. 381 (F.B.)). - A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held in this case that condensed milk prepared out of milk comes within the expression of "milk" as used in section 4(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as it was milk though condensed and not a milk product.
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
In support of this submission, he mainly relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-nut Factory ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 205 at 217 (S.C.)), (ii) Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana and (iii) Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. State of Bombay .
M/S. Anwarkhan Mahboob Co vs The State Of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) ... on 20 September, 1960
In support of this submission, he mainly relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-nut Factory ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 205 at 217 (S.C.)), (ii) Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana and (iii) Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. State of Bombay .
Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar & Co., Etc., Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors., Etc., Etc on 4 May, 1979
(4) The learned counsel for the State also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar & Co. v. State of Punjab in which the decision in Ganesh Trading Co. in which paddy and rice were held to be different commodities was reiterated, as also a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mysore Starch Manufacturing Co. v. State of Mysore [S.T.R.P. No. 35 of 1969 decided on 27th May, 1971 (Karnataka High Court)] in which it was held that tamarind pappu (kernel) was considered to be a commodity different from tamarind seed.
Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. & Ors. ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 May, 1974
In support of this submission he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. v. State of A.P. and pointed out that the Supreme Court itself has held that watery coconuts and copra are separate and distinct articles and that while the watery coconuts are used for cooking purposes and for social and religious functions, dried coconuts are used mainly for extracting oil. He submitted that desiccated coconut cannot be a substitute for watery coconuts at least in so far they relate to the use in social and religious functions and, therefore, cannot be equated with watery coconut. We do not think that this circumstances would make any difference. Though watery coconuts are generally used for offerings in temples and for presenting to relatives, guests and priests in religious and social functions, the ultimate use of all the coconuts so offered or given would be only for purposes of preparation of articles of food. Desiccated coconut can be used for all purposes for which ultimately the coconut kernel taken from watery coconut could be used. Moreover, it appears that the aforesaid observations were only meant to point out generally that hydrogenated groundnut oil could be used for all purposes for which groundnut oil is used and vice versa and were not intended to indicate that there was no use at all to which one could be used instead of the other. For instance, one who intends to use groundnut oil in small quantities along with certain items of food directly for taste and flavour like ghee, as is generally done in this State except in the west coast belt where for the same purpose coconut oil is used, hydrogenated oil can be no substitute, and is not used as it is tasteless and, similarly, while generally for preparation of sweets hydrogenated groundnut oil is used as it is odourless and not raw groundnut oil, and for burning lamps in temples and pooja rooms raw groundnut oil is used and not hydrogenated oil, though theoretically the use of one for the other is possible.