Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1953 1953 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 43 of 43 Records

• 1953 (3) TMI 17
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1) 1953 4 S.T.C. 6 A.T.R. 1952 Hyd. 191. on the words all forms prefixed to rice in item 1 of the exemp- tion and contends that the intention is to include all preparations from rice. This contention to our mind is untenable. The word form con- notes a visible aspect such as shape or mode in which a thing exists or manifests itself, species, kind or variety. Rice in all forms would mean all kinds or variety of rice or species of rice, such as broken rice, kichidi rice, pichodi rice or rice flour, etc. In this view of the matter we find no justification in holding that rice in item No. 1 of the exempted articles in Schedule I of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act dealing with cereals should be interpreted as meaning cooked rice or biriyani or polao. In the result, we direct that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Sales Tax Commissioner not to collect sales tax on double roti, tanure- ki-roti and shirmal as in our view they are included in the term bread . Order accordingly.

  ---

• 1953 (3) TMI 16
  

  Whether the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1952, and the rules made thereunder except Rule 5(2)(i) do not contravene the provisions of Article Articles 301 or 304 or 286?

  Held that:- The delivery State would tax both local and out-of-State dealers equally without discrimination against either and that, we think, is the only measure of protection which Article 286 could reasonably be supposed to accord to inter-State sales or purchases, when it is construed in the light of Articles 301 and 304.

  In the present case the tax is imposed, in ultimate analysis, on receipts from individual sales or purchases of goods effected during the accounting period, and it is therefore possible to separate at the assessment the receipts derived from exempted sales or purchases and allow the State to enforce the statute with respect to the constitutionally taxable subjects, it being assumed that the State intends naturally to keep what it could lawfully tax, even where it purports to authorize the taxation of what is constitutionally exempt. The principle, as it is tersely put in the American case, is that severability in such cases includes separability in enforcement.

  We accordingly set aside the declaration made by the Court below and quash the writ issued by it except in regard to Rule 5(2)(i). An injunction shall, however, issue restraining the appellants from imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax on sales and purchases which are exempted from taxation by Article 286 as interpreted above. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1953 (3) TMI 8
  

  Winding up – Power of company to appoint and fix remuneration of liquidator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed Judge seems to have overlooked the fact that some order had to be made for the costs which had been incurred prior to the date of the hearing. Even assuming that the appearance on 16th April, 1952, was not a proper appearance, the suit had been filed long before that date, costs of the suit had been properly incurred by the solicitors of the company, and some order had to be made for these costs. In the view that we take that the retainer of the company continued and that counsel was properly briefed to ask for costs, there seems to be no reason why on principle the costs should not have followed the event and the plaintiff should not have been made to pay the costs of the first defendant company. We would, therefore, modify the decree passed by the learned Judge and direct that the plaintiffs should pay the costs of the suit of the first defendant company. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs have failed in this appeal, they must also pay the costs of this appeal to the appellants.

  ---

123