Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
Jagatjit Sugar Mills vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 1994 cites

Desh Raj Parshotam Lal And Ors. vs The State Punjab And Ors. on 24 July, 1978

Though the subsequent decision of the Division Bench in Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar & Co. v. State of Punjab2 was not concerned with sugarcane but with paddy alone which is one of the items mentioned in Schedule C and though the said decision did not even refer to the decision in Malwa Sugar Mills1, it was held erroneously by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Desh Raj Parshotam Lal v. State of Punjab3 that the said Division Bench had the effect of overruling the decision of the learned Single Judge in Malwa Sugar Mills'. This holding of the Full Bench is incorrect as a fact and untenable in law. No purchase tax is payable under the Act on the purchase of sugarcane by the petitioner's mills and hence, there is no question of the petitioner failing to pay the tax due within the meaning of Section 10.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Hotel Balaji And Others Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 22 October, 1992

17. Clause (ii) which continues the idea behind clause (i) says that where the manufacturer-dealer uses the goods purchased by him (raw material) in manufacture of goods other than the goods in Schedule B (i.e., where the manufactured goods are taxable at the sale point) but sends the goods so manufactured outside the State in any manner other than by way of inter-State sale or export sale, he shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase of raw material. The object is again the same. If the manufactured goods, which are taxable on sale point are sent out of the State, the State does not get any income. If, on the other hand, they are taken out of the State as a result of inter-State sale, the State gets the tax by virtue of Article 269 of the Constitution. In case of export sale, the State forgoes the tax but it does so because it serves the national interest of promoting exports. [See Hotel Balaji v. State of A.P 4 in this regard.] In other words, according to this clause, if the manufactured goods are taken out of the State in such a manner that State does not derive any tax (nor the national interest aforesaid is served), the purchase of raw material is taxed. Conversely, if the manufactured goods are sold within the State or sold in the course of interState trade or commerce or sold in the course of export sale, the raw material is exempted from purchase tax. In case, however, the manufactured goods are those mentioned in Schedule B not taxable on sale. point clause (i) does not concern itself with their manner of disposal. From the point of revenue, it makes no difference whether such goods are sold within the State or sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or sold in the course of export; in any of the situations, the State does not derive any revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 133 - Full Document
1   2 Next