Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Government of India Act, 1935
Poppatlal Shah vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India And ... on 30 March, 1953
Under Entry 48 of List II of the Government of India
Act, 1935the Provincial Legislatures could tax sales by
selecting some fact or circumstances which provided a
territorial nexus with the taxing power of the State even if
the property in the goods sold passed outside the Province
or the delivery under the contract of sale took place
outside the Province. Legislation taxing sales depending
solely upon the existence of a nexus, such as production or
manufacture of the goods, or presence of the goods in the
Province at the date of the contract of sale, between the
sale and the legislating Province could competently be
enacted under the Government of India Act, 1935. [see
Tata Iron & Steel Ca. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar(1) and
Poppatlal Shah v. The State of Madras ( 2 ) ].
By Art. 286 of the Constitution certain fetters were
placed upon the legislative powers of the States as follows:
The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
In the State
of Bombay and Anr. v. The United Motors (India) Ltd.(1) it
was held that since the enactment of Art. 286(1)(a) a sale
described in the Explanation which may for convenience be
called an "Explanation sale" is taxable by that State
alone in which the goods sold are actually delivered as a
direct result of sale for the purpose of consumption in that
State.
M/S. Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... on 20 September, 1955
In support of this argument
reference was made to the decision of this Court in Ram
Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax(1)
in which this Court observed as follows:
Indian Copper Corporation Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 7 November, 1960
In the present case the Subordinate Judge has, upon a
consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties stated
in his report dated June 27, 1962 that the intention of the
appellant was that the sale and delivery should be for the
purpose of consumption in the delivery States. It is true
that in his subsequent report dated March 22, 1963 the
Subordinate Judge gave a different finding. But it is
obvious that the subsequent report of the Subordinate Judge
is vitiated because the principle laid down by this Court in
India Copper Corporation's case(3) has not been taken into
account. Having regard to the evidence adduced by the
appellant in this case we are satisfied that the part of the
turnover which related to sale from 2, January 26, 1950 to
March 31, 1950 was not liable to sales tax and the levy of
sales tax from the appellant to this extent is illegal.
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Section 2 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Caltex India (Ltd.) on 17 December, 1965
the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd. (1)
in which the question arose as regards the validity of an
assessment of sales tax of all retails sales of motor
spirit. The Petrol Taxation Officer assessed the respondent
to pay sales tax for the period January 1955 to May, 1959
under s. 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Motor Spirit (Taxation of
Sales) Act, 2005. The respondent applied under s. 103 of
the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and a single Judge of
the High Court held that the respondent was liable to pay
sales tax only in respect of the sales which took place
during the period January to September, 1955 and issued a
writ restrainig the appellants from levying tax for the
period October, 1955 to May, 1959. On appeal a Division
Bench of the High Court quashed the assessment for the
entire period. On appeal to this Court it was held that
though there was one order of assessment for the period
January 1, 1955 to May 1959 the assessment could be
split up and dissected and the items of sale could be
separated and taxed for different periods. It was pointed
out that the sales tax was imposed in the ultimate analysis
on receipts from individual sales or purchases of goods
effected during the entire period, and, therefore, a writ of
mandamus could. be issued directing the appellant not to
realise sales tax with regard to transactions of sale
during the period from September 7, 1955 to May, 1959.