Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.96 seconds)Section 3 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 25 July, 1961
The view of the majority was approved by this Court in the
Central
460
Marketing Co. of India v. State of Mysore,(1) State Trading
Corporation of India v. State of Mysore(2) and Singareni
Collieries Co. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Hyderabad.
K. G. Khosla & Co vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 18 January, 1966
(3) In K. G. Khosla & Co. v. Deputy Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes,(4) counsel for the Revenue invited the
Court to reconsider the question but the Court declined to
do so. In a recent decision of this Court in Oil India Ltd.
v. The Superintendent of Taxes & others(5) it was observed
by Mathew, J., who spoke for the Court, that: (1) a sale
which occasions movement of goods from one State to another
is a sale in the course of inter-State trade, no matter in
which State the property in the goods passes; (2) it is not
necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State
movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have
occasioned such movement; and (3) it is also not necessary
for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding
inter-State Movement must be specified in the contract
itself. It would be enough if the movement was in pursuance
of and incidental to the contract of sale (page 801). The
learned Judge added that it was held in a number of cases by
the Supreme Court that if the movement of goods from one
State to another is the result of a covenant or an incident
of the contract of sale, then the sale is an inter-State
sale.
Oil India Ltd vs The Superintendent Of Taxes & Others on 3 March, 1975
(3) In K. G. Khosla & Co. v. Deputy Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes,(4) counsel for the Revenue invited the
Court to reconsider the question but the Court declined to
do so. In a recent decision of this Court in Oil India Ltd.
v. The Superintendent of Taxes & others(5) it was observed
by Mathew, J., who spoke for the Court, that: (1) a sale
which occasions movement of goods from one State to another
is a sale in the course of inter-State trade, no matter in
which State the property in the goods passes; (2) it is not
necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State
movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have
occasioned such movement; and (3) it is also not necessary
for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding
inter-State Movement must be specified in the contract
itself. It would be enough if the movement was in pursuance
of and incidental to the contract of sale (page 801). The
learned Judge added that it was held in a number of cases by
the Supreme Court that if the movement of goods from one
State to another is the result of a covenant or an incident
of the contract of sale, then the sale is an inter-State
sale.
Tata Engineering And Locomotive ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 24 February, 1967
The decision in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.
Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
and Another(6) on which the Union of India relies, proceeds
on a different consideration and is distinguishable. The
appellant therein carried on the business of manufacturing
trucks in Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar. The sales office
of the appellant in Bombay used to instruct the Jamshedpur
factory to transfer stocks of vehicles to the stockyards in
various States after taking into account the production
schedule and requirements of customers in different States.
The stocks available in the stockyards were distributed from
time to time to dealers. The transfer of the vehicles from
the factory to the various stockyards was a continuous
process and was not related to the requirement of any
particular customer. It was the stockyard incharge who
appropriated the required number of vehicles to the contract
of sale out of the stocks available with him. Until such
appropriation of vehicles was made, it was open
461
to the company to allot any vehicle to any purchaser or to
transfer the vehicles from the stockyard in one State to a
stockyard in another State. At page 870 of the report, a
statement occurs in the judgment of Grover, J., that it was
not possible to comprehend how in the above situation it
could be held that "the movement of the vehicles from the
works to the stockyards was occasioned by any covenant or
incident of the contract of sale." This statement is relied
upon by the Union of India in support of its contention that
the contract of sale must itself provide for the movement of
goods from one State to another. We are unable to read any
such implication in the observation cited above. At page 866
of the report, after referring to certain decisions, the
Court observed that the principle admits of no doubt,
according to the decisions of this Court, that the movement
of goods "must be the result of a covenant or incident of
the contract of sale."
Tata Iron And Steel Co., Limited,Bombay vs S. R. Sarkar And Others on 29 August, 1960
It is true that in the instant case the contracts of
sales did not require or provide that goods should be moved
from Faridabad to Delhi. But it is not true to say that for
the purposes of section 3(a) of the Act it is necessary that
the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the
movement of goods or that the movement of goods must be
occasioned specifically in accordance with the terms of the
contract of sale. The true position in law is as stated in
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Bombay v. S. R. Sarkar and
others(1) wherein Shah, J. speaking for the majority
observed that clauses (a) and (b) of section 3 of the Act
are mutually exclusive and that section 3(a) covers sales in
which the movement of goods from one State to another "is
the result of a covenant or incident of the contract of
sale, and property in the goods passes in either State"