Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (5.16 seconds)Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 1958
It was not said in the case of Tata
Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar [1958] S.C.R.
1355 which was a case of control, that there was no sale.
The entry should be interpreted in a liberal spirit and not
cut down by narrow technical considerations. The entry in
other words should not be shorn of all its content to leave
a mere husk of legislative power. For the purposes of
legislation such as on sales lax it is only necessary to see
whether there, is a sale express or implied. Such a sale
was not found in forward contracts and in respect of
materials used in building contracts. I am of opinion that
in these transactions there was a sale of sugar for a price
and the tax was payable".
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
The Income Tax Act, 1961
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Abdul Bakhi And Bros on 8 April, 1964
It was contended that the factory was a manufacturer of
sugar and paid excise duty on sugar to the Central
Government and sugar was item 34 of the Second Schedule and
therefore no tax was payable by a dealer who is a
manufacturer of sugar. The purchase of sugarcane was said
to be for manufacture of sugar and not for resale of
sugarcane and therefore the tax which is levied on the
dealer will not fall on the appellants on the purchase of
sugarcane. The High Court held relying on the decision of
this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Bakshi &
Bros. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 531 that if a person carries on the
business of buying or selling a commodity it is not
necessary that he should sell the same commodity to become a
dealer. The commodity may be converted into another
saleable commodity or it may be used as an ingredient in the
manufacture of a commodity. Therefore, the factories which
bought sugarcane could be said to carry on the business of
buying and selling sugarcane and the factories are dealer
within the meaning of the Mysore Sales Tax Act.
The third contention on behalf of the appellants was that
the levy of 15 per cent purchase tax on the sugarcane on the
appellants was in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution inasmuch as the rates were different in
different States. It is an indisputable feature in the
present appeals that all the factories in Mysore have been
treated equally. Different rates in different States are
explicable on various grounds. The quantity available, the
conditions of agriculturists, the number of factories will
all have distinctive features. Therefore, there can be no
infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It was also said on behalf of the appellants that tax on
purchase of sugarcane could not be collected by the
appellants as tax.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S New India Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Bihar on 26 November, 1962
The decision of this Court in the case of
Gannon
238
Dunkerley & Co. (supra) was referred to in the New India
Sugar Mills (supra) case for the meaning of the word 'sale).
The majority view in the case of New India Sugar Mills Ltd.
was on the reasoning that the prerequisite to a sale was a
contract of sale which was to be had between the parties.
The Province of Madras intimated its requirements to the
Controller. The Controller called upon the manufacturing
units to supply sugar to the Province. It was held that the
Controller did not act as an a,-lent of the Province to
purchase goods but that he acted in exercise of his
statutory authority. Therefore, there was no offer by the
Province to purchase sugar and there was no acceptance of
offer by the manufacturer. The ratio was that there was no
privity between the manufacturer and the Province. The
minority view in that case was that there might be
compulsion in both buying and selling but a compelled sale
might nevertheless be a sale. Hidayatullah, J. for the
minority view said "the affairs of the world are very
complicated and sales are not always in their elementary
forms. Due to short supply or maldistribution of goods,
controls have to be imposed. There are permits, price
controls, rationing and shops which are licensed. Can it be
said that there was no sale because mutuality is lost on one
account or another ?