Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 60 (0.59 seconds)State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 2003
It is the
petitioners' case that the decision in State of U.P. Vs.
Union of India (supra) was erroneous not only because it
held that the telephone connection and all other accessories
which gives access to the telephone exchange with or
without instruments are goods but also because there was
in fact no transfer of any of these equipment to a
subscriber. The predominant element and intention in the
transaction was one of service and not of sale. It is
submitted that taxing telecommunication services as a
deemed sale under Entry 54 of List II would be violative of
Article 286 of the Constitution as the same involves
connecting subscribers throughout the territories of India
without any regard to State boundaries.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. And ... vs The Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara (And ... on 10 February, 1961
Amalgamated Coalfields case No.2 (supra) was
distinguished in the case of Devi Lal Modi Vs. Sales Tax
Officer 1965 (1) SCR 86 in which the challenge was to
assessment proceedings under the Madhya Bharat Sales
Tax Act, 1950. The writ petition was dismissed by the High
Court. The special leave petition was also dismissed. The
same order of assessment was challenged by filing a second
writ petition before the High Court. This was also
dismissed by the High Court. The question, before this
Court was whether it was open to the appellant to challenge
the validity of the same order of assessment twice by two
consecutive writ petitions under Article 226. The Court
acknowledged that in regard to the orders of assessment for
different years, the position may be different and said:-
Twentieth Century Finance Corpn.Ltd.& ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2000
With respect, the decision in 20th Century Finance
Corporation Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, cannot be
cited as authority for the proposition that delivery of
possession of the goods is not a necessary concomitant for
completing a transaction of sale for the purposes of Article
366 (29A) (d) of the Constitution. In that decision the Court
had to determine where the taxable event for the purposes
of sales tax took place in the context of sub-clause (d) of
Article 366 (29A). Some States had levied tax on the
transfer of the right to use goods on the location of goods at
the time of their use irrespective of the place where the
agreement for such transfer of right to use such goods was
made. Other States levied tax upon delivery of the goods in
the State pursuant to agreements of transfer while some
other States levied tax on deemed sales on the premise that
the agreement for transfer of the right to use had been
executed within that State (vide paragraph 2 of the
judgment as reported). This Court upheld the third view
namely merely that the transfer of the right to use took
place where the agreements were executed. In these
circumstances the Court said that:-
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
Devilal Modi, Proprietor, M/S. Daluram ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam And Others on 7 October, 1964
Amalgamated Coalfields case No.2 (supra) was
distinguished in the case of Devi Lal Modi Vs. Sales Tax
Officer 1965 (1) SCR 86 in which the challenge was to
assessment proceedings under the Madhya Bharat Sales
Tax Act, 1950. The writ petition was dismissed by the High
Court. The special leave petition was also dismissed. The
same order of assessment was challenged by filing a second
writ petition before the High Court. This was also
dismissed by the High Court. The question, before this
Court was whether it was open to the appellant to challenge
the validity of the same order of assessment twice by two
consecutive writ petitions under Article 226. The Court
acknowledged that in regard to the orders of assessment for
different years, the position may be different and said:-