Kwality Ice Cream Company And ... vs The Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi on 27 March, 1974
In the case of Kwality Ice Cream Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi [1974] 34 STC 396, a similar view was taken.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)A. V. Fernandez vs The State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1957
16. Now, an exemption can be granted only in respect of a matter which is liable to tax. If milk products were not liable to tax either under Section 3-A or under any other provision, no question of granting an exemption under Section 4 would at all arise. We are enforced in this view by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala [1957] 8 STC 561 (SC). On page 574 the difference between provisions relating to exemption and non-liability to tax is spelt out. It would be profitable to quote the relevant passage from the decision of Bhagwati, J.:
Milco Ice-Cream Co. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 3 May, 1979
In the case of Milco Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1979 UPTC 1283, a learned single Judge of the Lucknow Bench held that ice-cream was a milk product and its turnover was exempt from sales tax by virtue of Notification No. ST-775/X dated 16th February, 1965.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Dayal Singh Kulfiwala on 12 July, 1979
14. We then come to the year 1980 in which the difference of opinion surfaced, on account of the notification of 1st December, 1973, issued under Section 3-A. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Quality Ice Cream Co. (page 301 infra) 1980 ATJ 276, one of us took the view that the notification of 1st December, 1973, superseded all earlier notifications and, as such, ice-cream was taxable under the notification under Section 3-A. On the contrary, Prem Prakash, J., in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dayal Singh Kulfiwala 1980 UPTC 360 held that kulfi and lassi being milk products were exempt from tax, notwithstanding the notification issued under Section 3-A making them taxable under that provision. We feel that in case the State Government had been more alert in realising the repercussions of issuing notifications under Section 3-A, while milk products including ice-cream and lassi were exempt under the notification issued under Section 4, the divergence of opinions which has led to this reference would not have occurred.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Quality Ice Cream Co. on 29 February, 1980
14. We then come to the year 1980 in which the difference of opinion surfaced, on account of the notification of 1st December, 1973, issued under Section 3-A. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Quality Ice Cream Co. (page 301 infra) 1980 ATJ 276, one of us took the view that the notification of 1st December, 1973, superseded all earlier notifications and, as such, ice-cream was taxable under the notification under Section 3-A. On the contrary, Prem Prakash, J., in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dayal Singh Kulfiwala 1980 UPTC 360 held that kulfi and lassi being milk products were exempt from tax, notwithstanding the notification issued under Section 3-A making them taxable under that provision. We feel that in case the State Government had been more alert in realising the repercussions of issuing notifications under Section 3-A, while milk products including ice-cream and lassi were exempt under the notification issued under Section 4, the divergence of opinions which has led to this reference would not have occurred.
1