Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.26 seconds)Section 14 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
V. Guruviah Naidu And Sons Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. Etc on 2 November, 1976
As rightly contended for the respondent/State, it would be farfetched to plead that the undressed hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are one and the same commodity. The earlier decisions of the courts referred to supra as well as the actual position prevailing in the trade circles and commercial parlance would go to show that the dressed hides and skins are not only distinct and separate in their identity as well as merchantability, but has escalated value and price, in that the dressed hides and skins are invariably of double the value than the undressed hides and skins. Therefore, commercially and commodity-wise the undressed and dressed hides and skins constitute different commodities or merchandise and consequently could be treated normally as different goods. The observations of the Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions reported in Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co.'s case , Guruviah Naidu's case and Anwaraulla AM. Ghouse & Co.'s case [1971] 28 STC 610 (Mad.) are more than sufficient to sustain the claim of the respondent/State in this regard and there is absolutely no need or scope for any re-thinking on this aspect.
Gordon Woodroffe & Company (Madras) ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 1978
[Gordon Woodroffe & Co. (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu], referred to supra.
Firm A. T. B. Mehtabmajid And Co vs State Of Madras And Another on 22 November, 1962
In Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. State of Madras [1964] 15 STC 719 another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the issue in the context of a challenge to the then Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1963, which was enacted to fill in the vacuum created on account of the earlier decision in (Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras) referred to supra. While holding that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1963 are discriminatory on account of the fact that the rate of tax on the sale of tanned hides and skins was considered to be higher than that on the sale of untanned hides and skins, the court held as follows :
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Mahi Traders & Ors. Etc. Etc on 3 February, 1989
and State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders a Division Bench of this Court observed that simply because manufacturing process of preservative nature is undergone by raw hides different goods cannot be said to necessarily emerge and the question as to whether and to what extent the essential prerequisites stipulated in section 5(3) of the Central Act had been fulfilled by the turnover and the transactions in question requires proper verification with reference to the relevant records and further details by the statutory authorities under the Act.
T. Azeezur Rahman And Company vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 1991
30. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on some of the decisions of this Court would have no relevance at all for the cases before us for the simple reason that the issues under consideration in those cases were not of the same type and manner in which they have been now raised before us. In some of the said cases the issue did not concern the difference between the dressed or raw hides or skins, but merely turned with reference to the same class of goods as in Mahi Traders cases [1980] 45 STC 327 (Mad.). The decision concerning reptile skins proceeded altogether on different basis as to whether they can be treated as hides and skins falling under entry 7 of the Second Schedule to the State Act or section 14(iii) of the Central Act or item No. 52 of the First Schedule to the State Act. The decision in Azeezur Rahman & Co.'s case [1991] 82 STC 355 authored by me on behalf of the Division Bench of this Court, presided over by Dr. Justice A. S. Anand, the then learned Chief Justice, has no relevance to the case on hand. That decision was rendered on the peculiar facts of thee case and in the context of the claims made under section 5(3) of the Central Act and the scope as well as the content of section 5(3) of the Central Act. The observations in paragraph 16 of the said judgment have to be considered and viewed in the context of the views expressed in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the same decision. The conclusions rendered in paragraph 16 of the decision of the Division Bench, are not based upon the etymological consideration of the words hides and skins whether in a raw or dressed state or with reference to the legislative competency of the State Legislature to treat raw or dressed hides and skins as two different commodities for levy of sales tax under the State Act or from the angle of restrictions or extent of restrictions imposed under section 15(a) on the powers of the State Legislature in the matter of levy of sales tax on inside sales of such declared goods. To quote and bluntly rely upon some of the observations of the Division Bench therein, de hors the context and considerations involved therein would amount to doing violance not only to the language but also to the ratio of the decision itself. Therefore we are not persuaded to agree with the claims made for the petitioners. Consequently the provisions of the impugned Act as well as the Government order under challenge do not suffer from the vice of contravention of article 286(3) of the Constitution of India or sections 14 and 15 of the Central Act, 1956.
M.M. Anwaraulla Am. Ghouse And Company vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 23 March, 1971
As rightly contended for the respondent/State, it would be farfetched to plead that the undressed hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are one and the same commodity. The earlier decisions of the courts referred to supra as well as the actual position prevailing in the trade circles and commercial parlance would go to show that the dressed hides and skins are not only distinct and separate in their identity as well as merchantability, but has escalated value and price, in that the dressed hides and skins are invariably of double the value than the undressed hides and skins. Therefore, commercially and commodity-wise the undressed and dressed hides and skins constitute different commodities or merchandise and consequently could be treated normally as different goods. The observations of the Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions reported in Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co.'s case , Guruviah Naidu's case and Anwaraulla AM. Ghouse & Co.'s case [1971] 28 STC 610 (Mad.) are more than sufficient to sustain the claim of the respondent/State in this regard and there is absolutely no need or scope for any re-thinking on this aspect.