Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 71 (0.46 seconds)Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Ayurveda Pharmacy & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 March, 1989
In our considered opinion, none of these authorities would in any way support or advance the contention of the learned Counsel, in Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Supreme Court held that Arishtams and Asavas, (Ayurvedic medicines containing alcohol) are medicinal preparations and even though they contain a high alcohol content, so long as they continue to be identified as medicinal preparations they must be treated, for the purposes of the Sales Tax Law, in like manner as medicinal preparations generally, including those containing a lower percentage of alcohol and that levy of higher rate of sales tax on these two Ayurvedic medicinal preparations on ground that they contain a high percentage of alcohol is therefore discriminatory. However in the same decision, the Apex Court has held that it is open to the Legislature, or the State Government if it is authorised in that behalf by Legislature, to select different rates of tax for different commodities and what the actual rate should be, is not a matter for the Courts to determine generally. The ratio decidendi of the judgment in that case is that where the commodities belong to the same class or category, there must be a rational basis for discriminating between one commodity and another for the purpose of imposing tax. Since we have held that the commodities included in Entry 80 and the commodities included in Entry 80-A are not the same, the above ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court has no application to the facts of this case.
Chiranjit Lal Anand vs State Of Assam & Anr on 2 August, 1985
The above observation of the Supreme Court is, in fact, against the petitioners. From the
observation of the Supreme Court that a uniform rate of tax may be applied to all the goods which are involved in the execution of the works contract, it cannot be said that the State Legislature lacks legislative competence to tax differently the goods involved in the execution of the works contract. In that case, the Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to tax similarly all the goods involved in the execution of the works contract. As an analogy, what could be culled out from the above observation of the Supreme Court is that, it is equally permissible for the State Legislature to tax the goods involved in the execution of the works contract at different rates also. We need not dilate this aspect further because we have found that the items included in Entry 80-A are different in kind and nature from the items included in Entry 80. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Chiranjit Singh Anand v. State of Assam (supra) is also not helpful to the petitioner. In that case, the appellants supplied various items of ration, including "meat on hoof, to the Central Reserve Police Units in Assam for which the meat on hoof was supplied was for the meat, and though "meat on hoof was live animal. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held, that "meat on hoof was to be understood in the context of the persons who were dealing in "meat or hoof". We are at a loss to understand how the above judgment of the Apex Court would support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in any way. It is pertinent to note that in the same judgment, the Supreme Court has opined that it is well settled that in interpreting items in statutes like Sales Tax Acts whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning i.e., the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment
then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined. But, in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment, the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance, as the case may be, has to be adopted.
Cooch Behar Contractors' Association & ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996
This case dealt with the situation that obtained before incorporation of Entry 80-A. The learned Counsel would place strong reliance on the following observation of the Supreme Court in Coach Bihar Contractors' Association v. State of West Bengal (SC) (supra).
Navodaya Traders vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, ... on 31 August, 1995
In Navodaya Traders v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that Shell grit and mineral mixture used as supplementary diets for poultry in combination with other suitable ingredients necessary for manufacture of poultry feed, fall within the meaning of poultry feed in Entry 80 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act.
State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.Etc vs Mcdowell & Co.And Ors.Etc on 21 March, 1996
"Although non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and fairness are postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution, when an enactment is sought to be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, the reviewing Court should find some or other constitutional infirmity in addition to those grounds before invalidating the enactment. An enactment cannot be struck down merely on the ground that the Court thinks it is unjustified and unwise. This position is fairly well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Mc Dowell & Company, AIR 1996 SC 1625 (supra). It is not open to a Court to declare an enactment unconstitutional and void solely on the ground of unwise and harsh provisions or that it is supposed to violate some of the perceived natural, social, economic or political rights of the citizen, unless it can be shown with satisfactory proof that such injustice is in fact prohibited or such rights guaranteed or protected by the Constitution".
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr vs Kailash Chand Mahajan And Ors on 20 February, 1992
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph (48) of the judgment was pleased to observe:
Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair vs The State Of Kerala And Another(With ... on 9 December, 1960
7. It is true that taxation law is no exception to the doctrine of equal protection as held by the Apex Court in Khandige, Sham Bhat v. Agricultural ITO, AIR 1963 SC 591, State of M.P. v. Gwalior Sugar Co., , Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala (supra), State of A.P. v. Nalla Raja Reddy, , Vishweshar Thirtha Swamiar v. State of Mysore, , Ashwathnarayana Setty P.M. v. State of Karnataka, . Hence, a taxation law will be struck down as violative of Article 14 if there is no reasonable basis behind the classification made by the Legislature. However, if the taxation, generally speaking, imposes a
similar burden on every one with reference to a particular kind and extent of property, on the same basis of taxation, the law shall not be open to attack on the ground that the result of the taxation is to impose unequal burdens on different persons. There is no violation of Article 14 if there is a reasonable basis for the classification.
P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty & Ors. Etc. ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 22 September, 1988
11. It is relevant to note that in the field of taxation, the Courts have permitted the Legislature to exercise an extremely wide discretion in classifying items for tax purposes, so long as it refrains from clear and hostile discrimination against particular persons or classes as could be seen from the decisions in East India Tobacco Company v. State of AP., , P.M. Ashwathanarayan Shetty v. State of Karnataka, (1988) Supp.