Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.20 seconds)
Gannon Dunkerley And Company (Madras) ... vs The Government Of Madras on 26 November, 1962 cites

The Aryodaya Spinning And Weaving ... vs The State Of Bombay on 23 July, 1959

Reverting to their earlier decision in Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay [1960] 11 S.T.C. 141, they observed that where a sub sidiary product resulted from the normal business carried on by the assessee, an intention to carry on the business of selling the subsidiary product as a part or incident of the business of the assessee could be readily inferred and that the transaction could be regarded as an activity in the course of the business of the assessee.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958

5. Notwithstanding that the assessee engaged himself in the business of building contracts and that the transfer of property in the material used by him in the execution of the building contracts does not represent a sale within the meaning of the Act, there seems to be no doubt that the assessee is a dealer. "Dealer" as defined in the Act is a person who carries on the business of "buying, selling, supplying" goods directly or otherwise. It may be that the supply of goods made directly in the execution of the construction contracts by the assessee may not attract tax by reason of the further definition of sale as con tained in the Act. But in so far as the definition of "dealer" is con cerned, it does not appear to admit of any contradiction that the assessee would clearly come within the scope of that definition. We are unable to find anything in the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gannon Dunkerley case [1958] 9 S.T.C 353, which can possibly suggest that a building contractor cannot be a dealer. The principal reason why there was held to be no taxable turnover in the transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract is that, in such a case there is no sale of goods as such and that the property in the goods passed by accretion as it were to an immovable property. The contention of the assessees that the principle of this decision should be extended even to cases where the assessees sell the materials as such cannot possibly be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 719 - Full Document

Deputy Commr. Of Commercial Taxes, ... vs Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Motor Service, ... on 7 January, 1954

7. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore v. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Motor Service, Gudiyatham [1954] 5 S.T.C. 128. That was a case of a motor transport company which effected sales of unserviceable buses. The turnover of such sales was sought to be taxed. The learned Judges in a very short judgment held that on the facts found the motor transport company are not persons who could be described as "dealers" as denned in the Act, for they never carried on the business of buying or selling buses. Since their business was only the business of providing trans port, isolated transactions of sales of unserviceable buses could not be treated as sales by dealers in buses. This decision has really no application to the facts of the present case for here it cannot be denied and we do not understand the learned counsel for the petitioner to deny that the assessees do come within the scope of the definition of "dealer". The transport company in that case was not a dealer in the sense that it was supplying goods directly or otherwise for any purpose whatsoever. If it was not a dealer the further conclusion naturally followed. This decision to our mind has very little applica tion.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

A. Ebrahim And Company vs The State Of Bombay on 11 April, 1962

The decision of the Mysore High Court was considered in a later decision of the Bombay High Court in A. Ehrahim and Company v. State of Bombay [1962] 13 S.T.C. 877, among other cases, and the learned Judges observed that the question to be considered in a case of this kind was whether the sale in question was a business activity carried on by the assessee, that is to say, whether the sale had any reasonable connection with the normal course of business of the assessee and whether the intention of the assessee was to effect that sale in the course of that business.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

United Bleachers Ltd. vs The State Of Madras on 7 December, 1959

In a decision of this Court in United Bleachers Ltd. v. State of Madras [1960] 11 S.T.C. 278, it has been held that the profit motive necessary to be examined is one which embraces the whole business of the assessee and not in respect of each one of the component parts of the business. Whether a particular sale resulted in a profit or a loss is not the matter for consideration. It is whether a course of business activity is or is not intended to be engaged in with the profit motive.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1