Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.32 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 15 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Channulal Motilal vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 11 January, 1965
5. At the outset, we may note that there have been many amendments after the year 1962 -in the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We are not concerned with all those amendments, which may be misleading. But, we have necessarily to consider the law as it stood at the time of the assessment year, i. e., the period from 9th November, 1961, to 27th October, 1962. We shall, therefore, be confining to the law as it existed at that time unless we find that the subsequent amendments have retrospective operation. At this stage we might advert to an earlier decision of this court in a reference sought by the petitioner, namely, Channulal Motilal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore 1965 M.P.L.J. 354. In that case at the instance of the petitioner, the Board of Revenue had referred three questions for the opinion of this court under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The questions were as follows :
Section 13 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957
Section 14 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Paro And Co. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 June, 1969
25. Another reason why we would adopt the same interpretation is that in State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers [1967] 19 S.T.C. 24 (S.C.)., their Lordships of the Supreme Court have given a wider meaning to the word "sugar" and for valid reasons the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Paro & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1970] 25 S.T.C. 34 has adopted that principle.
Section 11 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Madanlal Khaitan vs The Commercial Tax Officer And Ors. on 15 February, 1972
Similarly, in Madanlal Khaitan v. Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri [1972] 29 S.T.C. 625, and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow v. Roshan Lai Balram [1972] 30 S.T.C. 166, the Division Benches of the said High Courts have followed that principle while interpreting the word "sugar" in a comprehensive sense. The third reason is that the word "sugar" as occurring in entry 41 of Schedule I to the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as it stood during the years 1960 to 1962 was without any qualification. Therefore, even if we were to adopt the meaning as understood in common parlance, it would include all forms of sugar in whatever shape it may be. Of course, the condition would be that it should not be mixed with any other substance. But it should be pure sugar in whatever form, whether in the form of sweets such as batasas, chironjidana or sugar-candy or in the shape of ornaments made out of sugar. The very fact that the legislature subsequently amended the schedules and made these transformed items of sugar taxable, would be an indication of the intention of the legislature to the effect that previously these items were not taxable, but the legislature thought it proper to tax them subsequently.