Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (2.16 seconds)THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956
Section 5 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Messrs Mohanlal Hargovind Das,Bidi ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another on 20 September, 1955
What was decided in Mohanlal's case, (ibid.) was that a transaction as a result of which there was a movement of the goods across the border of a State was a transaction 'in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, as distinguished from a purely internal sale or purchase.
Endupuri Narasimham And Son vs The State Of Orissa And Others on 14 March, 1961
This view was not only reiterated by Venkatarama Ayyar J., in the later case of Endupuri Narasimham and Son v. State of Orissa, , but it was pointed out there that the principle or the test in this behalf was the same for the purpose of ascertaining whether a transaction was 'in the course of inter-State trade or of export from or import into the territory of India.
The Cement Marketing Co., Of Indialtd. ... vs The State Of Mysore And Another on 28 August, 1962
This concept of the contract or transaction itself involving the movement of the goods was applied in the next case of Cement Marketing Co. v. State of Mysore, .
Tata Iron And Steel Co., Limited,Bombay vs S. R. Sarkar And Others on 29 August, 1960
In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Sarkar, and in State Trading Corporation v. State of Mysore, , It was expressed as a movement resulting from a 'covenant' or 'incident' of the contract of sale.
State Trading Corporationof India Ltd vs State Of Mysore on 28 August, 1962
In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Sarkar, and in State Trading Corporation v. State of Mysore, , It was expressed as a movement resulting from a 'covenant' or 'incident' of the contract of sale.
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 12 October, 1965
36. It is thus clear that the mere fact that there is no contract between the seller and the foreign buyer does not conclusively establish that a transaction cannot be one in the course of export'. It may still be held to be such transaction provided it is established that the contract between the seller and a third party 'occasions' the export. The recent decision in Singarenni Collieries v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others, , also demonstrates that for the application of the principle of 'occasioning the movement' , a direct contract between the seller and the purchaser is not necessary