Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.88 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), ... vs C. Abdul Shukoor Sahib And Company on 12 March, 1963 cites

Palaniappa Chettiar And Co. And Ors. vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Moore ... on 25 November, 1957

In Pachiappa Chettiar v. State of Madras [1962] 13 S.T.C. 202 which was decided by us, we specifically held that the Bell Mark Tobacco Company case, [1961] 12 S.T.C. 126 was an authority for the position that up to the stage of these processes of soaking in jaggery water and bulking, no manufacturing of the raw tobacco into some other product was involved.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker And Anr. vs Sales Tax Commissioner on 1 November, 1962

7. A decision of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker v. Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P., [1963] 14 S.T.C. 208 has been relied upon by the respondent. That decision states that in order that the process to which an article is subjected should be a manufacturing process, it is not essential that the article must change its nature. It is enough if it becomes a different commercial article. Whether it is a commercially different article was also held to be essentially a question of fact. In that case, tobacco was crushed and sieved and there was a finding that it had become a commercially different article. The learned Judges had to consider whether a notification of the State Government granting exemption under the U. P. Sales Tax Act applied. The goods which were so exempted from the payment of sales tax in the notification was described as "tobacco leaves whether green or dried, not having been subjected to any process of manufacture." The learned Judges had to interpret this item and they reached the conclusion already stated. Whether or not the tobacco had been subjected to a process of manufacture within the meaning of the notification was the matter that called for decision therein. In the present case however what we have to decide is whether notwithstanding the processes which were adopted, the tobacco continued to be raw tobacco within the meaning of Section 5(viii) or became a product manufactured from tobacco. We are not satisfied that there is any principle derivable from the Allahabad decision which can apply to the facts of the present case. We may also point out that the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court took note of the fact that the notification which they had to construe had in fact been subsequently amended to include crushed and sieved tobacco within the scope of the exemption. Whether or not that circumstance controlled the conclusion which they reached is not necessary to be considered.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bell Mark Tobacco Company And Ors. vs The Government Of Madras on 21 July, 1960

In dealing with the question, the Tribunal relied upon certain observations by this Court in Bell Mark Tobacco Company v. State of Madras [1961] 12 S.T.C. 126. We shall presently refer to the scope of this decision. The Tribunal also purported to rely upon the Report on the Marketing of Tobacco in India and reached the conclusion that the processes employed in converting the tobacco into powdered form were not necessary for the preservation of the tobacco, but were stages of preparation incidental to and indeed necessary for the purpose of manufacturing the beedis. That these processes were done not by the growers of the tobacco themselves but only by the beedi manufacturers or the distributing merchants was also stressed by the Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1