Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Nirmal Kumar Pradeep Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 February, 2023 cites

State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Rajasthan Chemist Association on 24 July, 2006

(i) State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajasthan Chemists Assn. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 773 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of levy of "tax on sale of goods" and held that State Legislature does not have legislative competence to give the expression "sale of goods" extended meaning and to enlarge its legislative fields to cover those transaction for taxing which do not properly confirm the element of sale of goods within the Sales Tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 53 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, Madhya ... vs M/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973

Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s VEENA THEATRE, PATNA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR reported in 1970 (3) SCC 79, Para 9 and THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH versus M/S H.M. ESUFALI, H.M. ABDULALI, SIYAGANJ, MAIN ROAD, INDORE reported in (1973) 2 SCC 137, Para 8 and 11 in support of his submission that in a case where the invoices and books of accounts of the petitioner were not believable the assessing officer had no other option than to make a best judgment/assessment by making an estimate of the sale price relying upon the I.B.M. rates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 192 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988

xxx xxx xxx "23. On the other hand, excise duty is a levy on a taxable event of "manufacture" and it is calculated on the "value" of manufactured goods. Excise duty is not concerned with ownership or sale. The liability under the excise law is event based and irrespective of whether the goods are sold or captively consumed. Under the excise law, the liability is there even when the manufacturer is not the owner of law material or finished goods (as in the case of job-workers). Excise duty, therefore, is independent of ownership [see Ujagar Prints (II) v. Union of India]. Therefore, for sales tax purposes, what has to be taken into account is the consideration for transfer of property in goods from the seller to the buyer. For this purpose, tax is to be levied on the agreed consideration for transfer of property in the goods and in such a case cost of manufacture is irrelevant. As compared to the sales tax law, the scheme of levy of excise duty is totally different. For excise duty purposes, transfer of property in goods or ownership is irrelevant. As stated, excise duty is a duty of manufacture. The provisions relating to measure (Section 4 of the 1944 Act read with the Excise Valuation Rules, 2000) aim at taking into consideration all items of costs of manufacture and all expenses which lead to value addition to be taken into account and for that purpose Rule 6 makes a deeming provision by providing for national additions. Such 18 deeming fictions and notional additions in excise law are totally irrelevant for sales tax purposes. Therefore, in any event, these notional additions cannot be read into Clause 5.1 and Clause t.2 of the General Agreement for Purchase of Parts dated 31.7.1997."
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 540 - Full Document

Girdharilal Nannelal vs The Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 28 March, 1970

Though several contentions have been raised by the parties on the merits of the matter regarding the levy of tax and penalty but since the matter is being remanded for the assessing officer on the point of recording of satisfaction under Section 35 (7) of the JVAT Act before initiation of the proceedings, we consciously refrain from making any observation on the merits of the case regarding the levy of tax and penalty upon the petitioner under Section 35 (7) r/w Section 40 (1) of the JVAT Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate General i.e. M/s VEENA THEATRE, PATNA and THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH (supra) relate to cases of best judgment assessment after the rejection of Books of Account of the Assessee. Since in the present case the requirement of law for initiation of the proceedings have not been fulfilled, these decisions are not of assistance to the present cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Veena Theatre, Patna vs The State Of Bihar on 23 April, 1970

Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s VEENA THEATRE, PATNA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR reported in 1970 (3) SCC 79, Para 9 and THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH versus M/S H.M. ESUFALI, H.M. ABDULALI, SIYAGANJ, MAIN ROAD, INDORE reported in (1973) 2 SCC 137, Para 8 and 11 in support of his submission that in a case where the invoices and books of accounts of the petitioner were not believable the assessing officer had no other option than to make a best judgment/assessment by making an estimate of the sale price relying upon the I.B.M. rates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next