Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.44 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Company, ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, ... on 10 April, 1964
Referring to the case of Wadeyar (supra) Shah J. speaking
for the majority in the case of Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations
Co. (supra) observed
"This was undoubtedly a case of two sales
resulting in export, and the first sale was
held immune from State taxation: but that was
so because the property in the goods had
passed to the Indian purchaser when the goods
were in the export stream. The first sale
itself was so inextricably connected with the
export that it was regarded as a sale in the
course of export."
THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956
State Of Travancore-Cochin Andothers vs The Bombay Co. Ltd.State Of ... on 16 October, 1952
The above observations would have been wholly unnecessary
and superfluous if it had been the intention of this Court
to lay down an absolute rule that once there arc, two
contracts, one between the dealer
195
and the intermediary and the other between the intermediary
and the foreign buyer, the court need not look to other
circumstances showing their inter-relationship and that only
the latter contract would qualify for exemption from payment
of tax. This Court in a series of cases, all decided by the
Constitution Bench, namely, State of Travancore-Cochin & Ors
v. The Bombay Co. Ltd., State of Travancore Cochin & Ors. v.
Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory & Ors. and Ben Gorm
Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Special'
Circle, Ernakulam & Ors (supra), had laid stress on the
integrated nature of the activities and the close nexus
between the contract of sale and the export of goods.
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
The above observations would have been wholly unnecessary
and superfluous if it had been the intention of this Court
to lay down an absolute rule that once there arc, two
contracts, one between the dealer
195
and the intermediary and the other between the intermediary
and the foreign buyer, the court need not look to other
circumstances showing their inter-relationship and that only
the latter contract would qualify for exemption from payment
of tax. This Court in a series of cases, all decided by the
Constitution Bench, namely, State of Travancore-Cochin & Ors
v. The Bombay Co. Ltd., State of Travancore Cochin & Ors. v.
Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory & Ors. and Ben Gorm
Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Special'
Circle, Ernakulam & Ors (supra), had laid stress on the
integrated nature of the activities and the close nexus
between the contract of sale and the export of goods.
Daruka & Co vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 August, 1973
In the case of
M/s Daruka & Co. V. The Union of India & Ors.(1) this Court
observed in para 23 of the judgment that the Corporation
like STC is in the nature of a commercial undertaking to
which a licence has been granted for the export of certain
commodities and the service charges are nothing but quid pro
quo for the services rendered by the Corporation. The
introduction of a statutory intermediary Eke STC with only
entitlement of commission of one dollar per ton would not,
in my opinion, affect the real nature of the transaction
that it was the appellant who was to export the chrome
concentrates to the foreign buyer.
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947
K. G. Khosla & Co vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 18 January, 1966
I may mention that in the case of Khosla & Co. (supra) there
were two contracts. This is clear from the statement of
facts given in the judgment of the High Court which was
under appeal in this Court. The judgment of the High Court
is reproduced in the report of that case in 17 STC 473. The
relevant passage in this respect reads as under :