Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
B. Dar Laboratories vs The State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 1968
4. The processing to which the glass bangles are subjected may conceivably result in different varieties of glass bangles, but I am unable to say that as between themselves each variety can be considered as a distinct commercial commodity. Different names may perhaps be given for the purpose of distinguishing one variety from another, but whether they are plain glass bangles or ornamented glass bangles their character and use remains the same. That character and use is not affected by the superficial change in appearance from plain bangles to ornamented glass bangles. I might refer to the observations in B. Dar Laboratories v. State of Gujarat [1968] 22 S.T.C. 160, where it was said :
Union Of India vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills on 12 October, 1962
In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 791, the Supreme Court brought out the distinction between "manufacture" and "processing" in the following words :
M/S. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool on 18 October, 1960
22. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1960] 11 S.T.C. 827, where the question was as to whether hydrogenated groundnut oil (popularly known as Vanaspati) was a commodity different from the groundnut oil. Vanaspati is manufactured from groundnut oil by a chemical process known as hydrogenation. This process brings about an intermolecular change which results in the hardening of the oil. The Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the intermolecular change the commodity continued to be the same as it was before undergoing the process of hydogenation.
Beharilal Shyamsunder vs Sales Tax Officer, Cui Circle, Cuttack ... on 8 November, 1965
13. Before examining this contention it is necessary to state that although the petitioner had filed an appeal against the impugned assessment, yet his contention relating to the vires of the notification was not adjudicated upon by the appellate authority in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Beharilal Shyamsunder v. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack 60 I.T.R. 260, where the Supreme Court held that the sales tax authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of any provision or notification of the Sales Tax Act. The alternative remedy provided in the Act not being efficacious, this is a fit case in which the petitioner should be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1