Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.51 seconds)Section 2 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
A. Hajee Abdul Shakoor And Company vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1964
In the aforesaid case the Apex Court which is a Bench decision three Hon'ble Judges (whereas the decision of the Apex Court in the of Telengana Steel Industries is a Bench decision of two Hon'ble Judges), it has been observed that whether Section 14(iii) of the Central regards them as the single commodity appears to have decision differently by a Constitution Bench in the case of Hajee Abdul Shakoor & Company (supra). In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the aforementioned two decisions even if an item falls under the same entry but is a separate commercial commodity then it is liable to be taxed.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Pyare Lal Malhotra Etc on 19 January, 1976
18. The words "hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state" in Section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act clearly seem to indicate that the legislature recognised that raw hides and skins was an item different from dressed hides and skins. As has already been noticed hereinabove it is after undergoing a manufacturing process involving various stages that raw hides and skins becomes dressed hides and skins. As observed in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra Etc. that "sales tax law is intended to tax sales of different commercial commodities and not to tax the production or the manufacture of particular substances out of which these commodities may have been made. As soon as separate commercial commodities emerge or come into existence, they become separately taxable goods or entities for purposes of sales tax. Where commercial goods, without change of their identity as such goods, are merely subjected to some processing or finishing or are merely jointed together, they may remain commercially the same goods which cannot be taxed again, in a series sales, so long as they retain their identity as goods of a particular type. In the present case dressed hides and skins is a separate commercial commodity which emerges after raw hides and skins has been subjected to manufacturing process and, therefore, Section 14(iii) deals with two different types of goods which unlike the case of pulses referred to in Section 15(d), is not regarded by the Act as one and the same commodity.
M/S. Kumar Motors, Bareilly vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax,U.P., ... on 2 February, 2007
He further submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in Kumar Motors (supra) was concerned with a situation where a dealer has purchased chassis and body against separate declaration Form 3A, which implied that he was liable to sell the goods so purchased in the same form and condition whereas the dealer had sold the three wheelers after getting the body mounted on the chassis which was held by the Apex Court to be not in the same form and condition and, therefore, the liability for payment of purchase tax for submitting wrong declaration was upheld. According to him, in the present case the petitioner had not purchased the chassis and the bodies against Form 3A and there is no question of imposition of purchase tax as it had already paid taxes on its purchases. He further submitted that in respect of the assessment years upto the year 2002-03, the Assessing Authority himself had not imposed any tax on the sale of three wheelers and granted exemption holding that there is no tax liability on such sales, therefore, the petitioner did not collect any tax from its customers and if it is made to pay the huge amount of Rs. 15,70.716/-, so imposed for five months, the petitioner's entire capital would be wiped off and it would be completely ruined. The respondent Nos. l and 2 are, therefore, estopped from realising any tax on the sale of the three wheelers from the petitioner.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher (P) Ltd. Etc on 14 March, 2000
20. It has further held that, in that case, however, stone, as such, and gitti and articles of stones are all of similar nature though by size they may be different. Even if gitti, kankar, stone-ballast, etc. may all be looked upon as separate in commercial character from stone boulders offered for sale in the market, yet it cannot be presumed that Entry 40 of the notification is intended to describe the same as not stone at all. In fact the term 'stone' is wide enough to include the various forms such as gitti, kankar, stone ballast.