|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 132 Records
-
1978 (12) TMI 175
... ...
... ... ..... to the language, that the dental chair is an article of convenience which can be used for the purpose of furnishing a house. That meaning would be nothing shorter than travesty of the language. As stated above, it is a necessary apparatus or tool for doing a job of dental surgeon and the very fact that the said chair is equipped with certain additional types of apparatus which would be very necessary for treating a patient suffering from dental disease supports the view which we are taking in the matter. The result is that the reference should be rejected by answering the question that the sale of the dental chair would be covered by the residuary entry 13 to Schedule III to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as held by the Tribunal. The question is, therefore, answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs since the opponent-assessee has not thought fit to appear in person or through an Advocate. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (12) TMI 174
... ...
... ... ..... d dismiss the tax revision case, confirming the counsel s fee already fixed by the learned Judge. On the expression of opinion by the Chief justice, as a third judge, the case came for final disposal and the Court delivered the following judgment on 13th June, 1979 The judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHURAMAN, J.-In accordance with the provisions of section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there was a difference of opinion on the question whether the assessee could, in the appeal against the reassessment proceedings, challenge the assessability of a sum which had been included in the original assessment and which the assessee had not objected to in any appeal filed against the said assessment, there was a reference to a third judge. The majority view now is that the assessee could agitate the matter in an appeal against the reassessment. The result is the revision petition will have to be and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (12) TMI 173
... ...
... ... ..... er as to costs. On the expression of opinion by the Chief justice, as a third judge, the case came for final disposal and the Court delivered the following judgment The judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHURAMAN, J.-As there was a difference of opinion on the question as to whether the assessee can raise for the first time an objection to the assessability of a particular turnover before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal without raising the same before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the matter was referred in accordance with the provisions of section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned Chief justice has agreed with the view taken by one of us, viz., that the assessee was not justified in raising such a dispute before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the first time without raising it before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the light of the majority judgment the petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1978 (12) TMI 172
... ...
... ... ..... India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals, which have been set out by us above, that the required additives had to be imported by the respondent on behalf of the said Gulf Oil and utilised in blending the lubricating oil belonging to the said Gulf Oil. It is thus clear that the import of the said additives was made by the respondent as an agent of the said Gulf Oil. The parties never intended that there would be any sale of additives by the respondent to the said Gulf Oil. The said additives have been imported by the respondent on behalf of the said Gulf Oil to be used for the purpose of blending the lubricating oil belonging to the said Gulf Oil. In these circumstances, there was clearly no transaction of sale between the respondent and the said Gulf Oil in respect of the said additives. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. The applicant to pay to the respondent the costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 171
... ...
... ... ..... cumstances of the case set out above, entry 88 would not be attracted. We wish to make it clear that we are not entering into the validity of the findings of the Tribunal on the other aspects involved in the case such as whether tank-trucks into which LPG is poured can be said to be closed containers within the meaning of entry 88. It is not necessary for the purpose of answering this reference to go into any of those questions. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that LPG sold by the assessee in bulk form by pouring the same into tank-trucks of the purchasers is not covered by entry 88 of Schedule II-Part A and that it is covered by entry 32 of Schedule II-Part A. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. State of Gujarat will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 170
... ...
... ... ..... I. We must, therefore, hold that even for the purposes of entry 67 of the Schedule to the Government notification it is not necessary that artificial silk fabrics therein mentioned should have been manufactured in India. It must, therefore, be held that the Tribunal was not right in the view that it took as to the artificial silk fabrics which are intended to be covered by entry 67. Question No. (3) does not require to be answered, because, having regard to the phraseology of the said question, the assessee has not pressed for its answer. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the questions referred herein as follows Question No. (1) In the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. (2) In the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. (3) Not required to be answered. The State of Gujarat shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (12) TMI 169
... ...
... ... ..... hat the shipment would arrive after six months, the respondent-mills made arrangements to purchase 300 bales of similar cotton to meet their immediate requirements. The consignment of Californian cotton arrived unexpectedly in April, 1953, and the respondent-mills had to take delivery thereof. Thus a large sum of money belonging to the respondent-mills was blocked up and, with the sanction of the authorities, the respondent-mills sold 411 bales out of this consignment to other mills in two lots on May 31, 1953. It was held by the Supreme Court that in selling these bales with a view to avoid locking up of their funds, it could not be inferred that the respondent-mills had sold the goods with the intention to carry on the business of selling cotton and the sales were, therefore, not liable to be taxed. In the result, we answer the question submitted to us in the negative. The applicant will pay to the respondents the costs of the reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 168
... ...
... ... ..... ings under section 35 of the said Act were not covered by sub-section (2) of section 36 of the said Act. Before parting with the case, we may mention one other matter. At the hearing of the second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, the Government agent, who appeared on behalf of the department, accepted the position that the amendment to section 36(2)(c) of the said Act with effect from 1st September, 1969, to which we have already referred earlier, could not apply to the proceedings in question. In view of this, no submission has been made before us on the footing that, in the present case, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the said Act as amended by Maharashtra Act 40 of 1969 have any applicability and we are not called upon to consider the validity of any such submission. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. The applicant must pay to the respondent the costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 167
... ...
... ... ..... that the ampules have not to be injected into the body of a patient to whom the injection is to be administered has no relevance whatsoever in judging whether an injection could be said to have been manufactured unless the injectible liquid medicine is poured and sealed into the glass ampule. The dichotomy which the Tribunal has made by considering the injectible liquid medicine as distinct from the glass ampules into which they are poured and sealed is artificial and unrealistic. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in holding, in the instant case, that purchase tax was leviable on the purchase of glass ampules used in the manufacture of injections which were sold by the assessee locally and not on consignment basis. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The State of Gujarat will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 166
... ...
... ... ..... as committed an error of law in construing the term machinery , its spare parts and accessories by taking a very narrow view of the same. The Tribunal, it appears, was impressed undoubtedly with the fact that the entire printing work is done with manual labour. In our opinion, here also the Tribunal has erred because it did not attach sufficient importance to the fact that part of the drying work which is done instantaneously was carried out with the aid of steam pipes which are fitted below the tables and the mixing of colours is done mechanically by a machine which is fixed at a distance from the job of printing which is carried on the tables. In that view of the matter, therefore, we must accept this reference. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the applicant-assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner of Sales Tax shall pay costs of this reference to the applicantassessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 165
... ...
... ... ..... query therein relates to two distinct entries. There are, therefore, two distinct parts of the single question, namely, the first part relating to entry 92 of Schedule II-Part A, and the second part relating to entry 16(1) of the same schedule, and each one of those parts is capable of being treated as a separate question. It is on that basis that we propose to decline to answer the second part of the question that has been referred to us for our opinion. In the result, the reference stands disposed of as follows (a) The first part of the question is answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (b) The second part of the question is declined to be answered and the Tribunal will adjust its decision on that part of the question under section 69(4) in accordance with the observations made herein. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (12) TMI 164
... ...
... ... ..... pose will be served by declining to answer the question and leaving it to the Tribunal to adjust its decision after determining the said question. We must hold accordingly that the products at serial Nos. (1) and (2) are not covered by entry 21 of Schedule I, though for reasons different from those which appealed to the Tribunal. As regards the second question, entry 25 of Schedule I has no words of limitation. It covers poultry-feed without any qualification. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we must hold that the products at serial Nos. (3) and (4) are covered by the said entry. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. (1) In the negative, that is to say, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Question No. (2) In the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (12) TMI 163
... ...
... ... ..... onditions. The conditions do not stand satisfied. We are clear that in this case there is a sale of goods and not a sale of immovable property and, therefore, the definition of the relevant terms in the Act are satisfied and attracted. Even going by the terms of explanation (1) to section 2(xxi), what was argued by the counsel for the petitioner was that rubber trees cannot be taken as timber in the well-understood sense of the term, as explained, for instance, in Black s Dictionary, page 1653. Whatever be the meaning of this expression we are clear on the terms of exhibit P1 the contract to cut and sell trees standing on the land was a sale of goods or of movable property and, therefore, that will attract the relevant definitions under the Sales Tax Act. In this case, the assessing authority was correct in its conclusion that the turnover was liable to be assessed. We see no ground to interfere. We dismiss the tax revision case with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (12) TMI 162
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court decision 1977 39 S.T.C. 12 (S.C.). The amending provision has been inserted in the original clause (b) of section 15 retrospectively with effect from the date of insertion of section 15, that is, 1st October, 1958. In other words, the provision which was sought to be introduced by the amending Act, has to be read as if it existed from its inception. If that is so, and if the avowed object of section 15 is to restrict the power of the State to tax declared goods, we do not think that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the claim of refund of the assessee. The result is, therefore, that we must accept this reference of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and we answer the question (as reframed) in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Since the assessee has not thought it fit to file appearance either in person or through an Advocate, there should be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 161
... ...
... ... ..... he Sales Tax Officers were very busy making assessments and did not, therefore, have the time to put up notices or give notices to those from whom the amounts were collected by the dealers. Leaving aside the question whether the period of limitation of one year would begin to run when the order of forfeiture is passed or from the time it is brought to the notice of the person who would be entitled to apply for refund, we fail to see how the provisions of section 38(6) could be pressed into service to enlarge the scope of section 46(2) of the Act or of the legislative field provided for in the said entries 54 and 64 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In the result, we answer the question submitted to us in each of these four references in the negative. The respondent will pay to the applicants the costs of these references. The fee of Rs. 100 paid by the applicants in each of these references shall be refunded to them. References answered in the negative.
-
1978 (12) TMI 160
... ...
... ... ..... must also observe that the unreported decision of Madhava Reddy, J., in Darapureddi Venkanna v. Commercial Tax Officer, AmalapuramW.P. No. 366 of 1967 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)., and the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Tagoob Mohammad of Kanchili v. Commercial Tax Officer, Srikakulam 1971 28 S.T.C. 110., cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are also of no assistance as, in both the cases, watery coconuts were held to be oil-seeds answering the description of the same as set out in section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act, as it stood prior to the amendment effected by Act No. 61 of 1972. We, therefore, hold, agreeing with the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, that the disputed turnover of coriander was rightly assessed to tax at the point of first purchase under item 9 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The tax revision case, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (12) TMI 159
... ...
... ... ..... by literally construing the word miller to signify a person functioning as a miller, that is to say, who converts groundnuts into oil. Therefore, there is no doubt that a miller, as it is used in item 6 of the Third Schedule, is a person, who owns or works a mill either as a tenant or as a proprietor. As far as the present assessee is concerned, he neither owns a mill nor takes a mill on lease. The assessee just engages a crushing mill on occasions for crushing a part of his groundnut kernel. He cannot therefore be treated as a miller within the meaning of item 6. This conclusion is further supported when we read the word miller in conjunction with the following words other than a decorticating miller . Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee does not come under the first limb of item 6 also is quite right. In the result, we uphold its decision and dismiss this tax revision case, preferred by the revenue, with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (12) TMI 158
... ...
... ... ..... n though some processing is required before it becomes fit for use by human beings or other living creatures. Jari bootis are medicinal herbs, which are found in forests, as they are also termed as ban aushadhi see Brihat Hindi Kosh (edited by Kalika Prasad, Raj Ballabh Sahai and Mukundi Lal Srivastava). They thus possess medicinal properties. The fact that they cannot be used straightway as a medicine, but required being reduced to powder or changed in some other form, or combined with other drugs to make them more effective does not alter their medicinal quality. These herbs are valued and sold primarily for their medicinal qualities as recognised in the ayurvedic system of medicine. They were rightly treated as medicines by the revising authority and, as the assessee had purchased them locally, no tax was exigible on their turnover. The revision fails and is dismissed. As none has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (12) TMI 157
Whether the service of meals is or is not a sale?
Whether on the facts of the present case a review is justified?
Whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Review petition dismissed. No hesitation in saying that where food is supplied in an eating-house or restaurant, and it is established upon the facts that the substance of the transaction, evidenced by its dominant object, is a sale of food and the rendering of services is merely incidental, the transaction would undoubtedly be exigible to sales tax. In every case it will be for the taxing authority to ascertain the facts when making an assessment under the relevant sales tax law and to determine upon those facts whether a sale of the food supplied is intended.
-
1978 (12) TMI 147
Whether a contract for fabrication and erection of a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane is a contract of sale or a contract for work and labour?
Held that:- Allow the appeal as relying on Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra [1978 (9) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] thus set aside the judgment of the High Court and hold that the contract in the present case was a contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale and, conformably with this view, we answer the question referred by the Sales Tax Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
........
|
