Chennai Court October 1967 Judgments
Bata Shoe Company Private Limited Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC135(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. The petitioner is a private limited liability company and seeks to have an order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division II, quashed. The assessment to sales tax relates to the assessment year 1965-66. The return for the year was due to be filed on or before May 1, 1965, but it was actually filed only on December 31, 1966. In the meantime, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer started proceedings proposing by his notice dated December 28, 1966, to determine the taxable turnover by best judgment at a certain figure and to levy tax at different rates on different items of turnover specified in the notice. It appears that by then the assessing officer had called upon the petitioner to produce accounts and for that purpose granted at its request several adjournments, but finally, he declined to give time beyond December 15, 1966. The explanation for filing the return belatedly was that the petitioner had to receive figures from various places of business and...
Tag this Judgment!East India Rubber Works Private Ltd. Vs. Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC157(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The tax case is directed against an order of the Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which confirmed the departmental orders demanding payment of Rs. 5,257.72. The amount admittedly represented excess sales tax collections. The assessee sold waterproof cloth and beltings, the turnover of which is exempt under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. He, however, collected Central sales tax on the sales and the demand was in respect of such collection, the department relying on Rule 4-A(iv) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957. The Tribunal's view was that the rule is within the competency of the State Government under Section 13(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It dealt with the question of vires of the rule on the impression that Section 9A as well as the rule covered collection by a registered dealer of an amount for which there is no liability to pay as tax under the Act.2. On the view we take of the scope of Section 9A and Rule 4-A, no question of vires of the ru...
Tag this Judgment!Bata Shoe Company Private Limited Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ295
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company and seeks to have an order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division II, quashed. The assessment to sales tax relates to the assessment year 1965-66. The return for the year was due to be filed on or before 1st May, 1965, but it was actually filed Only on 31st December, 1966. In the meantime, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer started proceedings proposing by his notice dated 28th December, 1966 to determine the taxable turnover by best judgment at a certain figure and to levy, tax at different rates on different items of turnover specified in the notice. It appears that by then the assessing officer had called upon the petitioner to produce accounts and for that purpose granted at its request several adjournments, but finally, he declined to give time beyond 15th December, 1966. The explanation for filing the return belatedly was that the petitioner had to receive figures from various places of business and...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Electro-mechanical Fabricators Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC269(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The turnover in dispute in this tax case filed by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 10,120.75 relates to sales of frames, nuts, tubes, rollers, wheels, etc. The assessee claimed the benefit of Section 3(3), which provides for a concessional rate of one per cent. He produced a declaration in Form XVII, which has been prescribed in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3. There is no dispute as to the factum or truth of the certificate of this declaration. The assessing authority disallowed the claim on the ground that the sale bills did not show the name and details of the machinery. Nevertheless, he assessed the goods at three per cent, treating them as falling within entry 23 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. He also considered that there was no proof that the component parts were used in the same form without any further processing. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, took a different view and held that the turnover w...
Tag this Judgment!City Motor Service Private Limited Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC485(Mad)
ORDER1. These tax cases filed by the same assessee raise a common point, besides two others in one or two of them. The commn point is whether the turnover relating to bus body-building contracts is chargeable to tax. The Tribunal has taken the view, agreeing with the department that it is. We accept this view to be correct. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the terms of the contracts which have been extracted by the Tribunal in its order suggest only an intention to construct bodies and not to sell bus bodies as finished independent units. We do not agree. While accepting the order, the assessee stated that a sum of Rs. 1,250 would be charged towards the cost of constructing one delivery van body on a three wheeler Lambretta chassis supplied by the customer. In another case the sample quotation offered by the assessee to the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras said that it was for the construction of tipper body on Tata Mercedes Benz and Leyland conventional type cha...
Tag this Judgment!Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Madras : No. 2
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: [1969]23STC379(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. One of the questions raised by the assessee in this tax revision case is, whether 'garage stools' are within entry 44 of Schedule I of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal's view is that they do fall within it. In our opinion, the Tribunal is right. The contention for the assessee is that the words 'furniture of all types including those made of steel' in entry 44 should be interpreted in the light of the preceding words 'upholstered furniture, sofa sets, dressing tables'. It is said that garage stools, though made of steel, are only used by workers in garages and the intention of entry 44 is not to cover such stools. We are unable to accept this construction. The phrase 'furniture of all types' is wide enough to cover all kinds of furniture, and is not confined to furniture used in homes and offices. Read in the light of entry 13, there is no doubt that entry 44 is intended to coverall types of furniture. The turnover relating to sale of garage stools ...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Electro-mechanical Fabricators Vs. the State of Madras, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ130
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The turnover in dispute in this tax case filed by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 10,120-75 relates to sales of frames, nuts, tubes, rollers, wheels, etc. The assessee claimed the benefit of Section 3 (3), which provides for a concessional rate of one percent. He produced a declaration in Form XVII, which has been prescribed in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3. There is no dispute as to the factum or truth of the certificate of this declaration. The assessing authority disallowed the claims on the ground that the sale-bills did not show the name and details of the machinery. Nevertheless, he assessed the good at three percent, treating them as falling within entry 23 of the First Schedule of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. He also considered that there was no proof that the component parts were used in the same form without any further processing. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, took a different view and held that the turnover...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Muthurama Reddiar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC174(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue by which in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision, it reversed an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and brought to tax a turnover of Rs. 43,396 on the view that it composed of sales of pebbles. The Board's view is that, on a construction of the contract, the parties intended sale and purchase of materials and not execution of works.2. We have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Board of Revenue. In cases like this, as has been pointed out by this Court on more occasions than one, the primary task is one of construction of the contract, as to whether the terms read as a whole disclose an intention to sell and purchase goods as such. In construing the contract, it will naturally be borne in mind how and when the property passes in the process of execution of the contract and how the risk in relation to the property is borne and by whom. The original contract is unfortu...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Venugopal Naidu Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC177(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. We are unable to accept the view of the Board that the transactions are sales of goods. In the case of both the contracts, the property in the goods right through remained with either the Neyveli Lignite Corporation or the Highways Department, as the case may be. The granite metal to be supplied under the contracts was, no doubt, to be of specified specifications. But they were to be removed from the site belonging to the Corporation or the Government. There was no stipulation in the contracts for the payment of seigniorage fee or any other consideration for the transfer of property in the granite metal to the assessee. Nor does it appear from the contracts that the granite metal, when removed, should be the property of the assessee free of cost. There was also a further stipulation in the contract that the quantity of metal removed from the prescribed places should only be supplied to the Corporation or the Highways Department. The Board of Revenue thought that these ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ponnuswamy Udayar Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC208(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The terms of the contracts are more or less similar to those in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 196 of 1966 (Venugopal Naidu v. The State of Madras) at page 177 supra. Learned Special Government Pleader argues, on the basis of Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 S.T.C. 766 that the transactions are sales of goods. We are unable to agree. Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 S.T.C. 766 has no application. There, clearly the Supreme Court held that the earth, out of which the bricks were to be made and supplied, was given to the assessee free of cost, which meant that there was transfer of property in the earth to the assessee. That is not the case here. It cannot be said, having regard to the terms of the contracts, that the property in the metal quarried by the assessee passed to him at any stage. The transactions were, therefore, purely of work and labour. Following the ratio of our decision in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 196 of 1966 [1963] 14 S.T.C. 766, we ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »