Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ... vs Oil Processors Private on 14 August, 1997 cites

M/S. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool on 18 October, 1960

11. We are supported in our above conclusion by the decision of the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1960] 11 STC 827 where hydrogenated groundnut oil (commonly called vanaspati) was held to be groundnut oil. In that case, the Supreme Court held that processing of groundnut oil in order to render it more acceptable to the customer by improving its quality would not render it a commodity other than groundnut oil.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 134 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs M/S. Shiv Datt And Sons, Etc. on 16 January, 1992

7. From a conjoint reading of section 8 and clauses (17) and (26) of section 2, it is clear that the benefit of section 8 would not be available if the dealer does anything to the goods which amounts to, or results in manufacture. The revenue relies heavily on the definition of "manufacture" as contained in the clause (17) of section 2 which is in very wide and unrestricted terms. It is on that basis that it is contended that the process applied by the assessee in the instant case to the used lubricating oil to make it reusable amounts to "manufacture". However, the effect of the wide and unrestricted definition of "manufacture" in section 2(17) of the Act on the true meaning of "manufacture" is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Datt & Sons [1992] 84 STC 497. In that case also it was contended on behalf of the revenue that the definition of "manufacture" contained in section 2(17) of the Act being very wide and unrestricted, any process with reference to the goods purchased would amount to a process of manufacture and consequently render the goods resold, goods of different class altogether. Repelling this contention, the Supreme Court observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 30 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ... vs Mahalaxmi Stores on 22 February, 1995

With each process, the original commodity undergoes a change. But it is only when the change takes the commodity to a point where it can be no longer regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in the trade as a new and distinct commodity that a manufacture can be said to take place. Where the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage, it cannot be said that there has been a "manufacture". [See Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Pio Food Packers , Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. , Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka , Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mahalaxmi Stores [1995] 97 STC 601 (Bom), Technova Graphic Systems Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1995] 99 STC 77 (BOM) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rajshree Electronics [1995] 98 STC 403 (BOM).]
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Technova Graphic Systems Private ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ... on 2 February, 1995

With each process, the original commodity undergoes a change. But it is only when the change takes the commodity to a point where it can be no longer regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in the trade as a new and distinct commodity that a manufacture can be said to take place. Where the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage, it cannot be said that there has been a "manufacture". [See Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Pio Food Packers , Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. , Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka , Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mahalaxmi Stores [1995] 97 STC 601 (Bom), Technova Graphic Systems Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1995] 99 STC 77 (BOM) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rajshree Electronics [1995] 98 STC 403 (BOM).]
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ... vs Rajshree Electronics on 31 January, 1995

With each process, the original commodity undergoes a change. But it is only when the change takes the commodity to a point where it can be no longer regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in the trade as a new and distinct commodity that a manufacture can be said to take place. Where the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage, it cannot be said that there has been a "manufacture". [See Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Pio Food Packers , Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. , Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka , Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mahalaxmi Stores [1995] 97 STC 601 (Bom), Technova Graphic Systems Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1995] 99 STC 77 (BOM) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rajshree Electronics [1995] 98 STC 403 (BOM).]
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Sterling Foods, A Partnership Firm ... vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr on 21 July, 1986

With each process, the original commodity undergoes a change. But it is only when the change takes the commodity to a point where it can be no longer regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in the trade as a new and distinct commodity that a manufacture can be said to take place. Where the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage, it cannot be said that there has been a "manufacture". [See Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Pio Food Packers , Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. , Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka , Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mahalaxmi Stores [1995] 97 STC 601 (Bom), Technova Graphic Systems Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1995] 99 STC 77 (BOM) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rajshree Electronics [1995] 98 STC 403 (BOM).]
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 159 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next