Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 14 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Venkatesh Foundry on 14 June, 1993
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venkatesh Foundry , speaking for the Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.) was member, our learned brother Parvatha Rao, J. while dealing with the question whether goods sold by the assessee as the cast iron casting, manufactured under the tax suffered pig iron and cast iron, were covered by item 2(i) of the Third Schedule to the Act, observed :
Telangana Steel Industries vs State Of A. P on 4 March, 1994
In Telangana Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994] 93 STC 187; (1994) Supp 2 SCC 259, the question which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, was whether "iron wires" which were produced from "wire rods" were separate commercial goods from "wire rods" and turnover of their sales was exigible to single point tax. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court left that question open but held that those two goods were mentioned under the same sub-item viz., (iv)(xv) and that the sub-item showed that "wires" were thought of as integral part of "rods" and not distinct from "rods", because the sub-item spoke about wires "rolled, drawn, galvanised, aluminised, tinned or coated" and that iron wires could not be taken as separate taxable commodity and if the "wire rods" which had been purchased by the appellants therein suffered sales tax, the same could not be realised from the sales of "wire". The case before the Supreme Court arose under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Section 6 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Vasantham Foundry vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 1995
6. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Vasantham Foundry's case , namely, whether the goods in question are being bought and sold i.e., dealt with and understood in commercial parlance as "cast iron" or as different goods for example man-hole covers, pipes, motor parts, etc., the answer, from the finding of the Tribunal, is clear that what was sold by the petitioner was not merely, "cast iron casting" as such but were different goods like machinery parts.
1