Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
P. Venkateshwara Rao And Co. vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 20 January, 2000 cites

Chander Bhan Gosain vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 5 April, 1963

In Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 STC 766, the land was given free which was considered as transfer of property in earth to the assessee and the price thereof was considered to have been adjusted while quoting the rate of bricks to be supplied, Supply of bricks was considered as sale and it was observed that the intention of the parties in making the contract is that the chattels should be produced and transferred as chattels for a consideration which was liable to tax. The essence of the contract was considered to be delivery of the bricks and the contract was for transfer of chattel qua chattel. Reference was made to the Benjamin on Sales (8th edition), page 161 and Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition), volume 34, page 6.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 59 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

H.Y. Jadhav vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 1979

7. According to the definition of "sale", there must be transfer of property by the appellant to the railway. If the contract is merely for stacking the ballast on the side of the railway track, then it is pure and simple labour contract as the property does not pass to the assessee at any point of time. But if the ballast is to be collected from the quarry they may be belonging to the railway or others for which the royalty is paid then it will be considered to be the case of transfer of property by the assessee to the railway to that extent in respect of balast. The decision relied on by the learned Government Advocate of the Full Bench of this Court in H.Y. Jadhav v. State of Karnataka [1981] 48 STC 496 has not dealt with the case where it was pure and simply stacking of stone ballast on the side of railway line and which have scattered with lapse of time by use of railway lines for which only labour is put by the contractor in collecting and stacking and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on that decision. It is only in respect of those supplies where the assessee has to collect the stone ballast from a different source, may be the State Government quarry or may be railway quarry. While procuring the stone ballast the assessee has to make the payment of royalty which has to be considered as the purchase price of the assessee and, therefore, property in stone ballast vest with the assessee which is transferred when such stone ballast are stacked on the side of the railway line. The decision given in the case of Purshottam Premji has not examined the aspect as to whether the royalty paid is price or not which has been consequently considered by the apex Court in the case of Cooch Behar Contractors' Association [1996] 103 STC 477.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax M.P. vs Purshottam Premji on 13 April, 1970

2. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision given in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Purshottam Premji . In the contract the assessee was to remove from the railway premises of rejected ballast and the royalty was to be paid to the State Government. It was found by the apex Court that the property in the ballast at all relevant times was with the railway and the ballast was never the property of the assessee and, therefore, there was no question of transfer of property by the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 48 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Cooch Behar Contractors' Association & ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996

3. On behalf of the revenue, reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of Cooch Behar Contractors' Association v. State of West Bengal , wherein it was considered that the royalty paid by the contractor to the Forest Department or Government for boulders, earth, etc., used in works contract have to be included in the contractual transfer price and cannot be deducted from the turnover.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 18 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1