Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Sabarmati Reti Udyog Kamdar Sahakari ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat ... on 9 December, 1970 cites

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

In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhan Gosain's case ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 766 (S.C.)) is clearly distinguishable on facts. The contract in that case, though prima facie worded as regards the relevant clauses in similar fashion as the contract in the instant case, is in fact cast in a different mould and it would be difficult to hold in the light of the special features and characteristics of the contract with which we are concerned that the decision of the Supreme Court in that case would completely govern the facts of this case. We have already held above that having regard to the special features of the contract in the present case, the property in the earth had not passed to the assessee and as such the first and most important feature which was present in the contract with which the Supreme Court was concerned, is absent in the present case. We have, while discussing that point earlier, indicated as to why we are taking the view that the property in the earth excavated from the land placed at the disposal of the assessee did not pass to the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 59 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Variety Body Builders vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Gujarat on 9 November, 1970

12. As regards the first contention, it is true that in the contract, words such as "sale", "purchase", "delivery", "rate of supply" etc. are used at some places by the contracting parties. Undoubtedly the language employed in the contract may throw some light on the intention of the contracting parties. But we are unable to hold that the absence or presence of words such as those relied upon by Mr. Shah would furnish a conclusive test as to the nature of the contract. We have held already in the case of Messrs Variety Body Builders, Baroda v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat State ([1971] 28 S.T.C. 339) that it is not the letter of the document but its spirit and essential character as gathered from the contract read as a whole which would help to determine the true nature and character of the contract. The relationship between the parties has manifestly to be ascertained from the real intention of the parties as gathered from the whole scope and effect of the language used in the contract and mere verbal formula employed therein or designation which a party chooses to give to the transaction, if inconsistent with the real intention, are to be disregarded. In our opinion, in cases of liability to pay tax, they are especially of little consequence and the court must look beyond those formulas and designation to the real nature of the agreement and determine the true relationship from all its provisions taken together and its legal character and effect must not be determined merely from the manner in which parties have chosen to describe the transaction at some places in the contract or from one isolated provision of the contract.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

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

Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Purshottam Premji ([1970] 26 S.T.C. 38 (S.C.)), a reference to which has already been made above, the Supreme Court has held that the property in the ballast which was obtained from the stones quarried from the quarries belonging to the railway did not pass to the contractor although the contractor in that case was required to pay royalty on the stones excavated by him from the quarries of the railway. These cases go to show that a contrary view may also be taken on the question and it is possible to hold that on supply of materials free of cost to the contractor by the other party to the contract, property in the materials does not necessarily pass to the contractor and the question must in each case be determined on the terms of the contract. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to deal in greater detail with the decisions on which reliance is placed by Mr. Shah.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 48 - K S Hegde - Full Document

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

27. Assuming, however, that the property in the earth supplied by the Government to the assessee in the present case was transferred to the assessee at some stage prior to the delivery of bricks and the property in the material ultimately passed to the Government on the fulfilment of the contract, it would not yet be possible to hold that the contract in the present case, merely on account of that fact, was a contract for sale of bricks. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 240 (S.C.)) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 102 - Full Document

C. Krishnaswami Rao vs The State Of Madras on 15 September, 1967

In the view that we are taking, we are supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in C. Krishnaswami Rao v. State of Madras ([1968] 22 S.T.C. 146). In that case the assessee had entered into a contract with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation for the manufacture and supply of bricks of specified size and design at agreed rates at kiln site in the land placed at the disposal of the assessee by the Corporation. The contractor, under the contract, was to quarry earth free of cost from the land of the Corporation. The contractor had to put up kiln only at places approved by the Corporation. The Corporation undertook to supply coal for burning the bricks and the contractor was to use the clay, coal etc. only for manufacturing the bricks required to be supplied to the Corporation. At the end of the period of the contract, the contractor had to clear the survey numbers of structures put up by him and also level the ground as required by the Corporation. An important condition of the contract was that the rejected bricks and brickbats were not to be sold to outsiders but were to be dumped in excavated pits for levelling up the ground. There were also other conditions of the contract which dealt with the manner in which the contract was to be carried out, particularly with regard to the use of the earth and the putting up of the kilns and other details. The Madras High Court on an overall view of the various terms of the contract, came to the conclusion that in that case the bricks at every stage of manufacture continued to be the property of the Corporation and what the assessee was called upon to do was only to manufacture bricks out of the earth supplied and to deliver the bricks at the places indicated by the officials of the Corporation and that it was a works contract pure and simple.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Kalva Suryanarayana on 21 June, 1961

29. Mr. Shah next relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kalva Suryanarayana ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 317), the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Pamandas Sindhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 74) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Mooljee Ramjee & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai Division ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 255), and urged that in each of the said three cases, the courts had taken the view that as a result of the right conferred upon the contractor to pick up the produce of the land or to excavate the soil with a view to winning minor minerals from the land belonging to the Government without the liability to make payment therefor resulted in the transfer of property in the produce or the minor minerals as the case may be, to the contractor. We have perused the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Shah and find that the decision in each of the said three cases has turned upon the peculiar terms of the different contracts and those decisions do not assist us in deciding, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the true nature and character of the transaction with which we are concerned.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Seth Pamandas Sindhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 10 April, 1962

29. Mr. Shah next relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kalva Suryanarayana ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 317), the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Pamandas Sindhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 74) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Mooljee Ramjee & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai Division ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 255), and urged that in each of the said three cases, the courts had taken the view that as a result of the right conferred upon the contractor to pick up the produce of the land or to excavate the soil with a view to winning minor minerals from the land belonging to the Government without the liability to make payment therefor resulted in the transfer of property in the produce or the minor minerals as the case may be, to the contractor. We have perused the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Shah and find that the decision in each of the said three cases has turned upon the peculiar terms of the different contracts and those decisions do not assist us in deciding, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the true nature and character of the transaction with which we are concerned.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

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

29. Mr. Shah next relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kalva Suryanarayana ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 317), the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Pamandas Sindhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 74) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Mooljee Ramjee & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai Division ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 255), and urged that in each of the said three cases, the courts had taken the view that as a result of the right conferred upon the contractor to pick up the produce of the land or to excavate the soil with a view to winning minor minerals from the land belonging to the Government without the liability to make payment therefor resulted in the transfer of property in the produce or the minor minerals as the case may be, to the contractor. We have perused the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Shah and find that the decision in each of the said three cases has turned upon the peculiar terms of the different contracts and those decisions do not assist us in deciding, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the true nature and character of the transaction with which we are concerned.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1