Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
The Nimar Cotton Press Through ... vs Sales Tax Officer And Anr. on 26 September, 1960 cites

Jaikishan Gopikishan vs Commissioner, Sales-Tax on 20 December, 1956

He relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jaikishan Gopikishan v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, 1957 MFC 94: 1957-8 STC 286: ((S) AIR 1957 Madh Pra 40) where it was held with reference to the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, that the owner of a ginning and pressing factory carrying on the business of baling and pressing cotton supplied by the customer and of delivering the pressed cotton in the form of bales covered with hessian cloth and secured by iron hoops, and making a consolidated charge for the pressing as well as packing was liable to pay sales tax on the value of hessian and iron hoops used in the baling process as these materials were goods and there was a sale in regard to them when the assessee transferred the property in those goods to the customers for consideration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

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

3. The present petition is founded mainly on the ground that the decision in 1957 MPC 94: 1957-8 STC 286: ((S) AIR 1957 Madh Pra 40) (supra) was contrary to the later decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. G. Dunkerley and Co., AIR 1958 SC 560, and Banarasi Das v. State of M. P., AIR 1958 SC 909; that the Sales Tax Officer should have held on the authority of the Supreme Court decisions that the transaction of the supply of ginned cotton by merchants to the petitioner for pressing and baling and of the delivery by the petitioner to the merchants of the pressed cotton in the form of bales was a works contract; that in the absence of an agreement between the petitioner and the merchant concerned with regard to the sale and purchase of hessian and iron hoops it could not be held that there was a sale of this material in the transaction; that, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay any sales-tax on the value of hessian and iron hoops used by him in the baling process; and that such an agreement could not be inferred merely by the circumstance that a consolidated charge was made for pressing and packing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 719 - Full Document

A.S. Krishna And Co. Ltd. vs The State Of Andhra on 9 August, 1955

14. It may he mentioned that in 1957 MPC 94: 1957-8 STC 286: ((S) AIR 1957 Madh Pra 40) (supra), a reference was made to A. S. Krishna and Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra, 1956-7 STC 26: (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 706), B. V. Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra, 1956-7 STC 486, Varasuki and Co. v. The Province of Madras, 1951-2 STC 1: (AIR 1951 Mad 254), and Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., Ltd. v. State of Madras, 1954-5 STC 354.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - K S Rao - Full Document

Varasuki & Co. Through One Of Its ... vs The Province Of Madras, Through The ... on 13 July, 1950

14. It may he mentioned that in 1957 MPC 94: 1957-8 STC 286: ((S) AIR 1957 Madh Pra 40) (supra), a reference was made to A. S. Krishna and Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra, 1956-7 STC 26: (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 706), B. V. Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra, 1956-7 STC 486, Varasuki and Co. v. The Province of Madras, 1951-2 STC 1: (AIR 1951 Mad 254), and Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., Ltd. v. State of Madras, 1954-5 STC 354.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. ... vs Council, Corporation Of Madras on 6 October, 1953

14. It may he mentioned that in 1957 MPC 94: 1957-8 STC 286: ((S) AIR 1957 Madh Pra 40) (supra), a reference was made to A. S. Krishna and Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra, 1956-7 STC 26: (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 706), B. V. Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra, 1956-7 STC 486, Varasuki and Co. v. The Province of Madras, 1951-2 STC 1: (AIR 1951 Mad 254), and Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., Ltd. v. State of Madras, 1954-5 STC 354.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

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

The first two cases have been dissented from recently by the Madras High Court in United Bleachers Ltd. v. The State of Madras, 1960-11 STC 278. The dissent is on the ground that where the main contract is , merely one of service, the fact that in the performance of such service packing materials are used and charged for will not lead to a necessary inference that the sale of the materials was intended, and in the cases dissented from it was not considered whether the principal contract was one of service or of sale of any goods and it was wrongly held that there was a sale of the packing material merely by reason that the property in the material was transferred for consideration. Here, as has been pointed out earlier, the substance of the packing part of the contract is the material used and not the labour that has to be exercised in packing.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

M.S. Chidambara Nadar Sons And Co. vs State Of Madras on 7 December, 1959

In Chidambara Nadar Sons and Co. v. State of Madras, 1960-11 STC 321, the decisions in 1951-2 STC 1: (AIR 1951 Mad 254), and 1954-5 STC 354 have been held to be in no way contradictory to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1958 SC 560 (supra) inasmuch as in those cases there was an agreement to purchase goods to be delivered by the seller to the buyer and it was implicit in the contract that the goods would be delivered as packed and thus there was a sale of the packing material. In the present case though there is no sale of the pressed cotton, there is an implied contract for the sale of the packing materials as such.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1