Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)The Karnataka Prohibition Act, 1961
M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 July, 2000
17. Now coming back to the impugned order, the appellant company by paying a hefty fee of Rs. 1,000/- on the application filed before the Advance Ruling Authority has sought a clarification, firstly, whether the nature of business and manufacturing activity carried on by it would come within the definition of 'works contract' and exigible to tax under the specific charging provision, namely, Section 5-B of the Act and consequently to clarify under which specific Entry under Fifth Schedule to the Act is activity could be fitted into. Secondly, if the activity of the applicant is not a works contract, then to clarify under which other Entry the same falls for the purpose of taxation under the Act. The Advance Ruling Authority after hearing the representative of the appellant company has passed a cryptic order, without even considering the nature of the contract between the appellant company and its customers. In our opinion, a sweeping generalization could not have been made in respect of all types of contracts that the Appellant Company has entered into with its employers. The Advance Ruling Authority should have called upon the appellant company to produce the purchase orders placed by its customers and the contract that has been entered into by them with the contractee and then only should have answered the clarification sought for by the appellant company, keeping in view the essential distinction brought out by the authoritative pronouncement on the issue by the Apex Court, wherein it is observed that there is a distinction between a contract of sale and works contract and no straight-jacket formula could be applied. Since the Advance Ruling Authority has not considered any one of the aspects which we have noticed above, we have no other alternative but to set aside the impugned order dated 26.5.2003 and remand the mater to the Advance Ruling Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, keeping in view the settled legal principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and the observations made by us in the course of our order.
State Of Gujarat (Commissioner Of Sales ... vs M/S. Variety Body Builders on 26 April, 1976
In State of Gujarat v. Variety Body Builders - (1976) 38 STC 176, this Court observed that there is no standard formula by which one can distinguish a contract of sale from a contract for work and labour. There may be many common features in both the contracts, some neutral in a particular contract, and yet certain clinching terms in a given case may fortify a conclusion one way or the other. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The question is not always easy and has for all times vexed jurists all over."
1