Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 1976 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1976 (10) TMI 121 - SUPREME COURTWas the Tribunal right in holding that, although the assessment order was made after the Constitution of India came into force, article 286 was thereby not contravened, because such order related to a period prior to January 26, 1950 - Held that:- Yes. The provisions of article 286 were not contravened. Was the Tribunal right in holding that explanation (II) to section 2(g), as was originally embodied in the Sales Tax Act, 1947, got restored on the statute book because of the unconstitutionality of the substituted explanation enacted in the Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1949 - Held that:- There is no question of restoration of unamended explanation (11) to section 2(g) as the purported amendment itself did not take effect.Hence, the unamended provision stood as it was before the attempted amendment. The question framed rests on a misconception that there was something to be restored. As nothing was taken away, nothing was there to be restored. And, there was nothing added or substituted. Does the Tribunal's decision not contradict the true meaning of the language "sale of any goods which are actually in the Central Provinces and Berar at the time when the contract of sale as defined in that Act in respect thereof is made", as occurring in explanation (11) to section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act, with reference to "in respect thereof " is reference to "specified or earmarked" goods which are actually present in the taxing State when the contracts are made - Held that:- This is a question of fact as to what contracts specify and whether those goods were taxed, on which the findings already recorded are enough to dispose it off against the assessee. Was the Tribunal right in its interpretation, application and use of the provisions of original explanation (11) to section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act even as they were? - Held that:- Yes. Was the Tribunal right in assuming the law to be that the existence of ingredients of ores in the taxing State in question, which were sufficient if and when mixed in due proportion for yielding different varieties of standard mixtures contracted for by the overseas buyers, was in law enough to attract the tax? - Held that:- There is no question of assuming anything. The process which was revealed and findings of fact given on it show that it did not result in the production of a new commodity at the port. It was only manganese ore of different grades which was unloaded at the port and given the name of "oriental mixture" because the ingredients got mixed up automatically in transportation and satisfied certain specifications. No new commodity was produced in this process. Was the Tribunal right in holding that the sales tax authorities had found as a fact that the goods consisting of oriental mixture were in the Madhya Pradesh State when the contracts in respect of these goods were made? - Held that:- Yes. Thus Assessee's appeals dismissed.
|