Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
United Bleachers Ltd. vs The State Of Madras on 7 December, 1959 cites

A.S. Krishna And Co. Ltd. vs The State Of Andhra on 9 August, 1955

14. The learned Judges of the Andhra High Court, in their decisions in Krishna and Co., Ltd. v. State of Andhra [1956] 7 S.T.C. 26 and Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra [1956] 7 S.T.C. 486 did not consider in the cases before them, whether the principal contract being one for service and not for sale of any goods, there had been any agreement between the parties, express or implied, for the sale of packing materials as such. The observations of the learned Judges would appear to imply that in their opinion what was necessary or sufficient to constitute a sale would be a transfer of movable property for consideration by a person carrying on business. That view is not in consonance with the principle that a mere passing of title to goods would not amount to a sale, except when such passing of title was the result of contract, express or implied, between the parties.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - K S Rao - Full Document

The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958

13. Therefore, a mere passing of title to the goods, but not as a result of any contract between the parties to sell either express or implied, cannot amount to a sale. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co., Ltd. [1958] 9 S.T.C. 353, was applied by us recently to the case of repairs to motor cars effected by a company carrying on business in reconditioning and repairing motor vehicles, where incidentally parts had to be supplied in effecting the repairs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 719 - Full Document

Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. ... vs Council, Corporation Of Madras on 6 October, 1953

In Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras [1954] 5 S.T.C. 354, the question of liability to sales tax for a turnover in respect of packing materials utilised for sale of tobacco came up for consideration. Section 4 of the Act exempted tobacco from the operation of the taxing provisions. It was held that the packing materials would not come within the scope of the exemption granted to tobacco and the turnover in respect of them would be assessable to tax, unless the assessee had made out a case for exemption under Rule 5(i)(g)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Gannan Dunkerley And Co. (Madras) Ltd. vs State Of Madras on 5 April, 1954

In the Gannon Dunkerley case [1954] 5 S.T.C. 216, this Court held that in the case of a chattel which has to be produced by the supply of labour and work of the contractor and also by the supply of materials necessary for producing the thing, when the. property in the larger corpus passes to the other party, the contract is one for the supply of the larger chattel and that there is no contract for sale or purchase of the component materials separatim. In the instant case there is no question of the transfer of property in the larger corpus., viz., car, as the car belonged to the customer. The contract was to execute works on the car of the customer and in the course of such repairs certain new accessories or parts had to be put in. There is no doubt that the property in those materials would eventually pass to the customer, but the question would be whether the agreement between the parties was that such parts should be treated as sold separatim or where they merely supplied in the course of carrying out a works contract of repair and charged as such.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

Mohanlal Jogani Rice & Atta Mills vs The State Of Assam on 1 August, 1952

7. The decisions referred to above were cases in which there had been a sale of the principal article and the question arose whether the packing materials used for the delivery of the principal articles could also be held to have been sold. In such cases the express agreement between the parties was to purchase the principal article, e.g., salt, tobacco or rice; there was no specific and separate agreement to purchase the packing materials alone. But, it could not be that the purchaser was agreeable to take the principal article alone; it is but reasonable to hold that the intention was to purchase the goods as packed, so that in the contract of sale of the principal item the sale of the packing material was implicit. To put it in other words, the intention of the parties being to deliver the goods as packed, a contract to purchase the packing materials could readily be inferred in the circumstances of those cases.
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Parvathaneni Ramakrishnayya ... vs The Commr. Of Income-Tax, Madras on 20 September, 1951

12. Although the decision of this Court in Gannon Dunkerley and Co.'s case [1954] 5 S.T.C. 216 was referred to in Krishna and Co. v. State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 26 the learned Judges did not consider it necessary to base their conclusion on the principle of that decision. Since the decision of the Andhra High Court in the two cases mentioned above, the Supreme Court has rendered its judgment in the appeal from the decision of this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1