Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (1.45 seconds)Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Section 3 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P. And Ors. ... vs Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Areti And ... on 5 August, 1992
52. Though the test was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Balabhagal vs state of Orissa (1976) 2 SCC 44, yet in Commissioner
of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, court held that the
sale through within the state was an inter-state sale.
Cooperative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 April, 1993
iv."15. The question as to whether a particular
sale is an inter-State sale is a question of fact to be
determined in the light of the statutory provisions. That
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34/44
T.C.Nos.77 to 80 of 2015& W.P.No.2322 of 2015
question can also be regarded as a mixed question of
law and fact in so far as the correct application of the
relevant principles of law to these facts are concerned. A
consideration of the factual background in which the
decisions were rendered in other cases is not of much
assistance in determining as to whether a particular sale
is an inter-State sale or not. The essential tests to be
applied are well-settled. Unless the movement and the
sale form an integral whole, the sale cannot be an inter-
State sale. A sale which ostensibly takes place within the
State can be an inter-State sale if the movement is
essential and inevitable, or necessary incidental, part of
the sale transaction as held by the Supreme Court in the
decision reported in [1993] 90 STC 1 [Co-operative
Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu). In that
case, sugar purchased by the agent of the sugar factory
situated in Kerala was normally be required to be
transported to Kerala in terms of the Government Order,
and could not have been diverted within the State. That
sale was held to be an inter-State sale as there was an
obligation on the buyer to whom the goods had been
sold out to take the goods any of the State to its factory
in the neighbouring State.”
Moti & Co. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 1997
In Moti and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 113 STC 53
(Mad), the Division Bench of the Madras High Court addressed whether
sales of tea purchased in Coonoor auctions and sold through brokers to
buyers outside Tamil Nadu qualified as inter-State sales. The appellant
claimed the sales were local, asserting that the goods were delivered ex-
godown at Coonoor, the broker issued delivery orders, and transport
charges were reimbursed by the out-of-state buyer. The appellant
contended that arranging transportation was a trade accommodation, and
the sale was completed within Tamil Nadu. The assessing officer,
however, treated the transactions as inter-State sales because the
appellant paid the lorry freight. While the appellate authority held the
sale was complete within the state, the Joint Commissioner restored the
assessing officer's order.
Section 64 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Soaps And Detergents Ltd. vs The District Forest Officer, ... on 7 February, 2005
In Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. v. District Forest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
37/44
T.C.Nos.77 to 80 of 2015& W.P.No.2322 of 2015
Officer, Sathyamangalam & Others (1980) 3 SCC 358, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court focused on the point of sale and the passing of property
in goods sold at auctions. It was held that the property in goods does not
pass at the fall of the hammer but upon fulfillment of conditions such as
full payment, weighment, and setting apart of goods for delivery.