Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.53 seconds)Government of India Act, 1935
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Article 366 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
“36. Even after the decision of this Court in the State of
Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. [AIR 1958 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 07:07:19 pm )
WP No. 7556 of 2008
560 : 1959 SCR 379 : (1958) 9 STC 353] it was quite possible
that where a contract entered into in connection with the
construction of a building consisted of two parts, namely, one part
relating to the sale of materials used in the construction of the
building by the contractor to the person who had assigned the
contract and another part dealing with the supply of labour and
services, sales tax was leviable on the goods which were agreed
to be sold under the first part. But sales tax could not be levied
when the contract in question was a single and indivisible works
contract. After the 46th Amendment the works contract which was
an indivisible one is by a legal fiction altered into a contract which
is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of
labour and services.”
Malda Bsnl Combined Contractors' ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 March, 2009
In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of BSNL and Another Vs. Union of India and
5
Others .
The Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 1 November, 1962
(ii) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala , and Varkisons
Engineer Vs. State of Kerala and another, is extracted hereinunder:
M/S Varkisons Engineers vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 23 April, 2009
(ii) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala , and Varkisons
Engineer Vs. State of Kerala and another, is extracted hereinunder:
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs A. Rafeeq Ahmed & Co. on 16 July, 1981
(iii) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Rafeeq Ahamed&Co ,
“Neither the assessing authority nor any other body dealing
with the question of assessability of a dealer under the Act has
the power to create fictions of their own, and foistfiscal liabilities
on the basis of those fictions.”
M/S Gannon Dunkerley And Company ... vs South East Central Railway 23 ... on 23 March, 2020
“43.Gannon Dunkerley [State of Madras v. Gannon
Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd., (1958) 9 STC 353 : AIR 1958 SC
560 : 1959 SCR 379] survived the Forty-sixth Constitutional
Amendment in two respects. First with regard to the definition of
“sale” for the purposes of the Constitution in general and for the
purposes of Entry 54 of List II in particular except to the extent
that the clauses in Article 366(29-A) operate. By introducing
separate categories of “deemed sales”, the meaning of the word
“goods” was not altered...”
(emphasis supplied)
11.1.