Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (2.13 seconds)Bulbu Prasad Amarnath vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 15 October, 1963
29. The Madras High Court had distinguished the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bulbu Prasad Amarnath v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1964] 15 STC 46 and the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Neo Pharma Private Ltd. had distinguished the decision of the Madras High Court.
Section 2 in The Rajasthan Finance Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Neo Pharma Private Ltd. on 2 March, 1982
29. The Madras High Court had distinguished the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bulbu Prasad Amarnath v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1964] 15 STC 46 and the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Neo Pharma Private Ltd. had distinguished the decision of the Madras High Court.
Section 6B in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
J. Srirangam Brothers And Ors. vs Sales Tax Officer on 13 March, 1959
A manufacturer makes to sell and depends for his profit on the labour which he bestows on the raw material", the Allahabad High Court referred to the decision of the Orissa High Court in Srirangam Brothers v. Sales Tax Officer [1959] 10 STC 257 and concluded that the assessees therein were manufacturers of linseed oil.
Palghat Oil Mills vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 1986
30. In interpreting the specific language employed in section 5-B of the Act, which requires that in order to claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax the dealer should have his manufacturing unit within the State, the decisions of the Orissa, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts, relied upon by the petitioners, are of no relevance after the deletion with effect from January 21, 1989, of rule 3(gg) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules which defined the expression "manufacturer". None of these decisions deal with the question as to what is meant by the words "having his manufacturing unit'. A plain meaning of these words, in the context in which they occur, is that a person in order to claim the benefit of section 5-B, must have a manufacturing unit either of his own or over which he has exclusive control. With respect, we agree with the view of the Kerala High Court in Palghat Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 169. If in the unit, where the finished goods are manufactured, some others also have control, it cannot be said to be "his manufacturing unit". Obviously the objective behind incorporating this condition in section 5-B is to insist upon the person seeking the benefit of reduced rate of tax under section 5-B of the Act, to start his own manufacturing unit or to take on lease with exclusive control a manufacturing unit. This would facilitate employment opportunities, generate wealth and also augment the revenues of the State, since any unit that comes into being has to pay taxes under various enactments. The petitioners in both the writ petitions do not have exclusive control over the manufacturing unit in which the biscuits are manufactured and so we hold that as each of them does not have "his manufacturing unit", within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 5-B of the Act, and they are not entitled to be registered as manufacturers under section 5-B. It is relevant to notice that form G1 which is required to be filed by the dealer under section 5-B contains column (2), under which it is obligatory on the part of the dealer to disclose the name and full postal address of the factory and the place of manufacturing concern.