Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.67 seconds)Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Section 38 in Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Ramavatar Budhaiprasad Etc vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola on 14 March, 1961
24. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in rejecting the assessee's appeal. Accordingly, the Tax Case Revision No.2308/2008 stands dismissed. No costs.
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Washi Ahmed Etc on 7 March, 1977
15. Rejecting the view of the Tribunal, holding that nuts and bolts were not iron and steel articles and based on assessee's nature of business, the Kerala High Court held that the materials produced viz., the nuts and bolts were just like any other nuts and bolts and there was nothing to show that they were exclusively meant for the autombile industry. Thus referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer (1961) 12 STC 286, in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Washi Ahmend (1977) 39 STC 378, in the case of Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd Vs. State of Haryana (1978) 42 STC 433 (SC), in the case of Deputy Commissioner Vs. Western India Plywoods (P.)Ltd (1980) 46 STC 331, in the case of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co., Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1988) 68 STC 324, the Kerala High Court held that the items in question were liable to be assessed as Iron and steel articles under entries 45 and 99 respectively of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act during the relevant period. The Kerala High Court also referred to the note by the Board of Revenue that the Department itself had classified bolts and nuts as falling under Entry 45 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. As far as the question as to whether jack is an accessory to a motor vehicle liable to tax at 15 per cent or an iron and steel article taxable to 6 per cent, the Kerala High Court held that a person seeing an automobile jack is not likely to understand it as a mere iron and steel article. He is likely to understand it only as an adjunct to the automobile necessary for its proper and effective use. He will view it as something which is sold by an automobile dealer and as something which every user of an automobile should necessarily possess. Going by this reasoning, the Kerala High Court rejected the assessee's contention to treat Jack as a mere iron and steel article and not an accessory to a motor vehicle.
Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 27 November, 1990
9. Referring to the decisions relied on by the assessee viz., PLASMAC MACHINE MGF CO. PVT. LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE reported in 1191 (51) E.L.T. 161 (Supreme Court), BHUR INDUSTRIES LTD, BOMBAY VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY reported in (1989) 1 SCC 602, M/S.ASIAN PAINTS INDIA LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE reported in (1988) 2 SCC 470, decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of SIMMONS MARSHAL LTD VS. M.RBARALIKAR ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE AND OTHERS reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T.378(Bom), The CEGAT, Special Bench 'D', New Delhi in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS VS. SUNDARAM FASTENERS LTD. MADRAS reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T.923 (Tribunal), the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that these decisions had no relevance at all. For understanding the issue, when Entry 119 deals with all 'bolts and nuts' without any exclusion clause and and Entry 3 deals with parts and accessories of motor vehicles without any inclusion clause, the contention of the assessee that by mere naming of the items as bolts and nuts should fall under Entry 119 was rejected by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal further referred to Entry 3 as excluding batteries and held that in the absence of any exclusive clause as regards 'bolts and nuts' in Entry 3, the claim of the assessee could not be accepted that the product in question would fall under Entry 119. Thus, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention.
Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 18 December, 1987
15. Rejecting the view of the Tribunal, holding that nuts and bolts were not iron and steel articles and based on assessee's nature of business, the Kerala High Court held that the materials produced viz., the nuts and bolts were just like any other nuts and bolts and there was nothing to show that they were exclusively meant for the autombile industry. Thus referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer (1961) 12 STC 286, in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Washi Ahmend (1977) 39 STC 378, in the case of Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd Vs. State of Haryana (1978) 42 STC 433 (SC), in the case of Deputy Commissioner Vs. Western India Plywoods (P.)Ltd (1980) 46 STC 331, in the case of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co., Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1988) 68 STC 324, the Kerala High Court held that the items in question were liable to be assessed as Iron and steel articles under entries 45 and 99 respectively of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act during the relevant period. The Kerala High Court also referred to the note by the Board of Revenue that the Department itself had classified bolts and nuts as falling under Entry 45 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. As far as the question as to whether jack is an accessory to a motor vehicle liable to tax at 15 per cent or an iron and steel article taxable to 6 per cent, the Kerala High Court held that a person seeing an automobile jack is not likely to understand it as a mere iron and steel article. He is likely to understand it only as an adjunct to the automobile necessary for its proper and effective use. He will view it as something which is sold by an automobile dealer and as something which every user of an automobile should necessarily possess. Going by this reasoning, the Kerala High Court rejected the assessee's contention to treat Jack as a mere iron and steel article and not an accessory to a motor vehicle.
Section 3 in Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. A vs State Of Haryana on 6 September, 1978
15. Rejecting the view of the Tribunal, holding that nuts and bolts were not iron and steel articles and based on assessee's nature of business, the Kerala High Court held that the materials produced viz., the nuts and bolts were just like any other nuts and bolts and there was nothing to show that they were exclusively meant for the autombile industry. Thus referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer (1961) 12 STC 286, in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Washi Ahmend (1977) 39 STC 378, in the case of Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd Vs. State of Haryana (1978) 42 STC 433 (SC), in the case of Deputy Commissioner Vs. Western India Plywoods (P.)Ltd (1980) 46 STC 331, in the case of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co., Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1988) 68 STC 324, the Kerala High Court held that the items in question were liable to be assessed as Iron and steel articles under entries 45 and 99 respectively of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act during the relevant period. The Kerala High Court also referred to the note by the Board of Revenue that the Department itself had classified bolts and nuts as falling under Entry 45 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. As far as the question as to whether jack is an accessory to a motor vehicle liable to tax at 15 per cent or an iron and steel article taxable to 6 per cent, the Kerala High Court held that a person seeing an automobile jack is not likely to understand it as a mere iron and steel article. He is likely to understand it only as an adjunct to the automobile necessary for its proper and effective use. He will view it as something which is sold by an automobile dealer and as something which every user of an automobile should necessarily possess. Going by this reasoning, the Kerala High Court rejected the assessee's contention to treat Jack as a mere iron and steel article and not an accessory to a motor vehicle.