Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Shew Bhagavan Shewratna And Anr. vs The Sales Tax Officer And Anr. on 1 February, 1956
In the latter case (Shew Bhagaban Shewaratna v. Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam) (H), Moha-patra, J., also held that Article 286 (1) or (2) had no application to the case and that there was no legal or constitutional bar to the State Legislature to enact the provisions and that the departmental authorities were therefore entitled to raise the tax under the proviso, the dealer having purchased the articles from another registered dealer with an undertaking that the articles were to be resold in Orissa and accordingly, both of them were therefore exempt from paying sales-tax under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the local Act. The petitioner in that case subsequently sold the goods outside Orissa. The Board of Revenue rightly included the sale-price of such goods in the petitioners' turnover under the proviso to Section 5 (2).
Sohan Pathak And Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P on 23 September, 1953
This provision is in pari materia with the provision in Section 66 (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922). Mr. Mohanty in support of this contention, relied upon a decision reported in Sohan Pathak & Sons v. Commr. of Income Tax, E.P. (1953) 24 I. T. R. 395 : (AIR 1953 SC 456) (C). The facts were that the assessee in that case was a Hindu undivided family consisting of four branches representing the four sons of one Sohan Pathak. The family, besides owning considerable property in Benares carried on business in money lending and Bena-rasi brocade under the name and style of M/s. Sohan Pathak and sons.
State Of Travancore-Cochin Andothers vs The Bombay Co. Ltd.State Of ... on 16 October, 1952
5. Turning to his second contention, Mr. Mohanty relied upon the first Travancore-Cochin case reported in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co. Ltd. Alleppey, AIR 1952 S. C. 366 (D), and the second Travancore-Co-chin case reported in 1953-4 S. T. C. 205 : (AIR 1953 S. C. 333) (A).
State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu & Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955
8. These two Travencore-Cochin cases came up for consideration in a subsequent decision
reported in State of Madras v. Gurviah Naidu and Co. Ltd, 1955-6 STC 717 : (S) AIR 1956 SC 158) (E). That was a case against an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court of Madras in a proceeding under Section 15 (b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the respondent Gurviah Naidu & Co. having failed to pay the entire amount of sales-tax assessed.
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
10. Subsequently, in the Bengal Immunity Co., Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955) 6 S. T. C. 446: ( (S) AIR 1955 S. C. 661) (F), the majority took the view that the Explanation to Clause (1) of Article 286 was for the avowed purpose of explaining what an outside sale referred to in Sub-clause (a) is and it does not confer or enlarge the legislative power of the States. The explanation would be legitimately extended to Clause (2) either as an exception or as a proviso thereto or be read as curtailing or limiting the ambit of Clause (2),
The dominant, if not the sole, purpose of Article 286 is to place restrictions on the legislative powers of the States, subject to certain conditions in some cases and with that end in view Article 286 imposes several bans on the taxing power of the State in relation to sales or purchases viewed from different angles and according to their different aspects. In some cases the ban is absolute (Clause (1) (a) read with the Explanation and Clause (1) (b) ) and in some cases it is conditional (Clause (2) ). Again, in some cases, the bans may overlap but nevertheless they are distinct and independent of each other.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
The dealer promised to produce the books of accounts of Messrs. Paluram Dhandhania who happened to be a relative of his. But ultimately the said accounts were not produced. The Assistant Collector further recorded that at the time of hearing it was admitted that M/s. Paluram sold the above jute to the outside jute mills charging a profit thereon. Thus, it is clear on facts that the situs for the sale was at Baragarh and the books of accounts of the dealer themselves show clearly that it was a sale out and out to M/s. Paluram Dhandhania & Co. Hence, according to the majority view of the Supreme Court, in the second Travancore-Cohin case, the provisions of Article 286(2) are not attracted.
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
In his judgment he referred to the United Motors Case decided by the Supreme Court, since reported in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. AIR 1953 S. C. 252 (B). The petitioners in due course filed an application under Section 24 (1) of the local Act for a reference, to this Court the above question of law, which was rejected on the ground that on the facts as found the sale was completed before it assumed the complexion of inter-State trade and the question having been finally decided by the Supreme Court, there was no necessity for any further reference.