Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)
Anamolu Seshagiri Rao And Co. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 24 November, 1978 cites

Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Guntur Tobaccos Ltd on 18 November, 1964

and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 240 (S.C.). In the former case, again it was a contract for fabricating and fixing certain windows in accordance with specifications, designs, drawing and instructions. The Supreme Court held that there were no two contracts, one of sale and another of service, and the fixing of windows to the building was not incidental or subsidiary to the sale, but was an essential term of the contract. In the latter case, the dealer was carrying on the business of re-drying in its factory raw tobacco entrusted to it by its customers and to pack the re-dried tobacco and deliver it to the customers. There was no separate charge for the value of the packing materials used. On the question whether the value of the packing materials was assessable, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any evidence from which contract to sell "packing material" for a price might be inferred, the use of the "packing material" by the assessee must be regarded as in the execution of the works contract. It can be seen that the goods that were delivered to the customers were along with the packing material and, therefore, the packing material was not separately assessable as the same was not divisible. These two decisions also are not helpful to the petitioners, as we have already held that the labour involved in these contracts is only incidental and ancillary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 102 - Full Document

Anamolu Seshagiri Rao And Company And ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 20 March, 1972

35. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the supply of ballast and the stacking of the same is an accretion to the railway property resulting in the improvement of the railway line. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that in A. Seshagiri Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1973) 1 An. W.R. 111, the Division Bench, which heard these writ petitions, also made an observation that stacking of the ballast along the railway line or cutting the ballast amounts to an improvement of the immovable property. Relying on this passage, the learned counsel sought to contend that the contracts are "works contracts". We have carefully gone through the passage. What the learned Judges meant was that for stacking of the ballast the railway banks have to be cut and levelled. In a way it may be an improvement, but that is not the main object of the contract. It was also incidental for stacking the ballast. In support of this contention, viz., that supply and stacking of the ballast is an accretion, he relied on a decision in T.V.S. Iyengar and Sons (P.)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mooljee Ramjee And Sons vs Deputy Commissioner (Commercial ... on 2 July, 1964

In the case before us, as pointed put by the Madras High Court in Muoljee Ramjee and Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai Division [1966] 17 S.T.C. 255, the assessee cannot be considered to be the agent of the railway for the purpose of quarrying inasmuch as he himself has to make his own arrangements for obtaining the ballast from the quarries and the quarries do not belong to the railways.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Vanguard Rolling Shuttersand Steel ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P on 8 March, 1977

and Vanguard Rolling Shutters and Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1977] 39 S.T.C. 372 (S.C.) These two cases are clearly distinguishable. The first one is a case where the contract was for supplying and fixing wooden windows and doors together with frames and painting them in the construction of the police lines building. One of the terms of the contract was that the frames have to be supplied and fixed at the site along with the masonry work and the amount which was payable to the respondent was for the entire work. Under these circumstances, the court held that the contract was one and indivisible and that the goods were not sold as movables. In the latter decision, the contract was to fabricate the rolling shutters, bring them to the site of the customers at the cost of the customers and thereafter erect them at the premises. The Supreme Court held that the contract was a works contract. It can be seen that the fabrication of the shutters and the actual fitting at the premises was a continuous one and was completed only when the erection was completed in everyway. These facts are different and the decision is distinguishable, as the nature of the contract in the case before us is quite different.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 27 - S M Ali - Full Document

Sentinel Rolling Shutters & ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra on 12 September, 1978

However, as observed by the Supreme Court in the unreported judgment in Sentinel Rolling Shutters and Engineering Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax Since reported in [1978] 42 S.T.C. 409 (S.C.), (Civil Appeal No. 1001 of 1977 dated 12th September, 1978), the intention of the parties has to be gathered from the terms of the contract, the circumstances of the transaction and the custom of the trade. The Mysore High Court has not considered the nature of the work undertaken under the contract applying the necessary guidelines for differentiating the two types of contract from one another. There are however decisions of the other High Courts which are directly on the point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 39 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Patnaik & Company vs State Of Orissa on 19 January, 1965

In Patnaik and Company v. State of Orissa [1965] 16 S.T.C. 364 (S.C.), the assessee entered into an agreement with the State of Orissa for the construction of bus bodies on the chassis supplied by the Government. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the assessee was responsible for the safe custody of the chassis and the assessee had to construct the bus bodies in the most substantial and workmanlike manner and the contract should be carried on with all due diligence and the inspecting officers had the right to stop any work which had been executed very badly and the assessee was entitled to 50 per cent of the cost of body-building at the time of delivery and the rest one month thereafter. The majority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, who heard the case, held that the contract as a whole was a contract for the sale of goods.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 51 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next