Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.64 seconds)
Ernakulam Radio Company vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 1966 cites

Konduri Buchirajalingam vs State Of Hyderabad & Ors on 3 April, 1958

On the basis of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 it was argued that since the dealer cannot pass on the incidence of surcharge on sales tax to the purchaser, surcharge is not really a tax on the sale of goods, but a tax on the dealer and that Entry 54 in List II would not justify the legislation in question. In other words, the argument was that surcharge is a tax on tax, that Entry No. 54 in List II will justify only a legislation imposing a tax on sale of goods, that tax on sale of goods is a tax on the sale itself and that since the dealer cannot pass on the incidence of surcharge to the purchaser or consumer, surcharge is really a tax on the dealer himself and not a tax on the sale of goods. This argument has no substance in it. The Supreme Court in Konduri Buchirajalingam v. State of Hyderabad [1958] 9 S.T.C. 397 has observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

The Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 1958

It is then said that the sale tax is essentially an indirect tax and therefore it cannot be demanded of the appellant without allowing him to recoup himself by collecting the amount of the tax from the persons with whom he deals. This Court has already decided in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. The State of Bihar [1958] 9 S.T.C. 267 that in law a sales tax need not be an indirect tax and that a tax can be a sales tax though the primary liability for it is put upon a person without giving him any power to recoup the amount of the tax payable, from any other party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 303 - Full Document
1   2 Next