Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 19 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited And Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 24 January, 2000
Reference may also be made to the decision of the apex court in E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes wherein the court interfered with the facts and imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessee had not acted in defiance of law or that the assessee was dishonest or that it had failed to adhere to discharge their obligation under the Act. Considering the totality of circumstances and examining the legal principles, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of these cases.
Agricultural Market Committee vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd on 7 May, 1997
5. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. and submitted that Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act attempts to give effect to the elementary principle of law of contract that the party may fix the time when the property in the goods shall be treated to have passed. Counsel submitted that the time of delivery or the time of payment of price or even the time of the making of contract and the manner in which transaction is to be carried out all depends upon the intention of the parties. Counsel submitted it is the duty of the court to ascertain the intention of the parties and in doing so, they would be guided by the principles laid down in Section 19(2) which provides for ascertaining the intention of the parties. Counsel further submitted in such circumstances court should have regard to the terms of the contract. Counsel also referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the fifth respondent and submitted that canteen had been issuing certificates as per S.R.O. No. 1091/99 for the last many years to all dealers including the assessees and that delivery of vehicles from dealer would normally be made to the customer and not to CSD. Counsel submitted that intention of the parties is therefore evident that though registration is in the name of individuals everything is routed through the Canteen/Department and therefore assessees are entitled to get the benefit of S.R.O. No. 1091/99.
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Section 20 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
We may in this respect refer to the decision of the apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa , wherein the apex court while dealing with the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, held (page 214):
Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 30 October, 1979
11. The apex court in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held that where the assessee does not include a particular item in the taxable turnover under a bona fide belief that he is not liable so to include it, it will not be right to condemn the return as a "false" return inviting imposition of penalty.
1