Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 16 in The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Indure Ltd. & Anr vs Commercial Tax Officer & Ors on 20 September, 2010
Ltd., 12and M/s. Indure
Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer13, are pressed into service, the dealer
there, was common in both transactions and the question of privity of contract
11
(1966) 17 STC 473
12
(1979) 2 SCC 242
13
(2010) 34 VST 509 (SC)
39
RRR,J & SS,J
W.P.No.21938 of 2024 & batch
did not come up. The minutes of the meetings held between the
representatives of the petitioner, PTC and the Bangladesh Board do not make
out privity of contract as these meetings were held to ensure smooth supply of
electricity and there was no variation in the contracts to create a direct
relationship between the petitioner and the Bangladesh Board. The supply, of
electricity, between the petitioner and PTC can only be called a supply for
export of goods and not, per se, an export of goods. The petitioner, though
mentioned in the agreement, is not a party to the contract of supply of
electricity, by PTC to the Bangladesh Board. The inevitable conclusion is that
the supply of electricity, by the petitioner, to PTC is not a exports supply of
goods and is a supply within India.
Mohd. Serajuddin Etc vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Md. Serajudin vs. The State of Orissa, that only the last
sale would meet the requirement of an export sale, Section 5 was amended to
introduce Section 5 (3) and subsequently Section 5 (4), which read as follows:
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
38. In both agreements, Bohronpur sub-station, in India, is specified
as the delivery point, which would be the place of supply. This would mean
that the supply of electricity happened in India itself. However, as held above,
the supply of electricity, by PTC to the Bangladesh Board, is an export supply
of goods, as the supply moves the electricity out of India. However, the supply
of electricity, by the petitioner to PTC, is a separate supply. The contention
that this supply is so integral to the export supply that it should be treated as a
part of the export supply, cannot be accepted for various reasons. A supply in
contemplation of a separate export supply has been held, in State of
Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, (1953) 1
SCC 826 : (1953) 4 STC 205 : 1953 SCC OnLine SC 89 at page 844 to be a
separate supply which does not get the benefit of the exception given in
Article 286 of the Constitution. The relevant extract, at the cost of repetition, is
set out below:
Union Of India & Anr vs K. G. Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd. & Others on 6 March, 1979
39. Even if the judgments in K.G. Khosla and Co.(P) Ltd. Vs.
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Madras Division, Madras 11.,
Union of India & another vs. K.G. Khosla & Co. (P).