Mumbai Court February 1976 Judgments
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Godrej-boyce Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)456
Madon, J. 1. In these two References under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the following two questions have been referred to us : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of Rule 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules 1959, the Tribunal was justified in coming to a conclusion that the Clause (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and the Explanation to Rule 41 are separate items and that the Department is totally wrong in making good the adverse balance under any clause of Rule 41 by deducting the set-off under a different head of Rule 41 having regard to the word 'aggregate' appearing in the opening sentences of Rule 41 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set-off under clause (iii) of the Proviso to the Explanation to Rule 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, one per cen...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)458
Madon, J.1. In these three References made under section 34(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the question submitted to us is the same as the question in Sales Tax References Nos. 32 and 33 of 1972, The C.S.T. vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt. Ltd., - decided by us today. Sales Tax Reference No. 61 of 1972 relates to the assessment period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958; Sales Tax Reference No. 62 of 1972 relates to the assessment period April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959; and Sales Tax Reference No. 63 of 972 relates to the assessment period April 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959. During the third period, namely, April 1, 1959 to December 13, 1959, Rule 11(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, was further amended by inserting clause (iv) therein under which to the amount of taxes collected from the manufacturing dealer by registered dealers from whom he purchased goods and the amount of purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)459
Madon, J.1. For the reasons stated in our judgment in the C.S.T. vs. Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd. (S.T.Reference No. 3 of 1974) delivered by us today, we answer the question submitted to us in this Reference in the negative. In computing the actual amount of drawback, set-off or refund, as the case may be, to be granted to the respondents, the Tribunal will do so applying the principles laid down by us in our judgment in the C.S.T. vs. M/s. Jai Hind Mills Co. (S.T. Reference No. 20 of 1972, decided of February 11/12, 1976), and the C.S.T. vs. Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd. (S.T. Reference No. 3 of 1974) decided on February 24, 1976. The respondents will pay to the applicant the cost of this Reference fixed at Rs. 75/-. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: [1976]384STC491(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. The question which has been submitted to us for our determination in this reference under Section 34(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the proper interpretation of section 18B(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, enacted by Bombay Act No. 16 of 1957 and rule 11(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, which came into force from 1st July, 1957, the Tribunal was justified in holding that one per cent should be calculated not on the entire sale price of the goods despatched by the respondent to its branches, but only on that part of the sale price of the goods sold outside the State, which is attributable to the locally purchased raw material on which the respondent was claiming set-off ?' 2. The respondents, who were at all material times registered as a dealer under the said Act, were assessed for the period...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC111(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us for our determination in this reference under section 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. These two questions are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set-off under clause (iii) of the proviso to the proviso to the explanation to rule 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, one per cent should be calculated not on the entire sale price of the goods despatched by the appellants to their branches, but only on that part of the sale price of the goods sold outside the State which is attributable to the locally purchased raw material on which the appellants were claiming set-off (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set-off under cl...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)396
ORDERMadon, J.1. The question which has been submitted to us for our determination in this Reference under section 34(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instances of the Commissioner of Sales Tax is - 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the proper interpretation of section 18B(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, enacted by Bombay Act No. XVI of 1957 and Rule 11(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, which came into force from 1st July 1957, the Tribunal was justified in holding that one percent should be calculated not on the entire sale price of the goods despatched by the Respondent to its branches, but only on that part of the sale price of the goods sold outside the State which is attributable to the locally purchased raw material on which the Respondent was claiming set-off ?' 2. The Respondents, who were at all material times registered as a dealer under the said Act, were assessed for the peri...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Economic Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)254
Madon, J. 1. The reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax appears to us, in the light of subsequent facts, to be unnecessary to decide and in light of the facts as existing at the date of the original Application for Rectification from which this Reference arises, as one which could easily have been avoided. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for an understanding of this Reference are that the Respondents are a firm registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. For the assessment period, April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1961, the Respondents were assessed to tax under the said Act. By his assessment order the Sales Tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,200 upon the Respondents under section 37(1) of the said Act. Against this order the Respondents went in appeal, and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in appeal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondents. Thereafter on October 20, 1966 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Messrs. Economic Traders.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)0254B
Madon, J. - The reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax appears to us, in the light of subsequent facts, to be unnecessary to decide and in light of the facts as existing at the date of the original Application for Rectification from which this Reference arises, as one which could easily have been avoided.2. The brief facts which are necessary for an understanding of this Reference are that the Respondents are a firm registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. For the assessment period, April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1961, the Respondents were assessed to tax under the said Act. By his assessment order the Sales Tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,200 upon the Respondents under section 37(1) of the said Act. Against this order the Respondents went in appeal, and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in appeal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondents. Thereafter on October 20, 1966 th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State Vs. P.G. Shah and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)249
Kania, J. 1. This is an Application under the proviso to section 61(1) of the Bombay sales Tax Act, 1959, for directing the Tribunal to state the case. 2. It may be mentioned that the Application has been placed on Board and taken up for hearing with the consent of the Counsel for both the parties. 3. In respect of the assessment period 3-11-1967 to 21-10-1968, the Respondents; being the assessee, were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, who disallowed the claim for deduction made by the assessee in respect of purchases made by the assessee from M/s. J. Maneklal and Co. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed this claim of the assessees on the ground that the signature on the purchase vouchers did not tally with the signature of M/s. J. Maneklal and Co. in the registration certificate record. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner, but with no success. The assessees then went by way of second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. At the hearing before the Sales Tax Tribunal it app...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Kohli, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Vs. Krishna Silicate a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT216(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Krishna Silicate and Glass Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') carried on business of manufacturing glass bottles of various sizes. Its factory was situate at Thana. In or about the year 1961 as a result of introduction of Item No. 23A in the First Schedule annexed to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') glass manufacturers were liable to pay excise duty. Item No. 23A is as under :- 23A. GLASS AND GLASSWARE------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tariff Rate of DutyItem No. Description of Goods Basic Special Excise------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 4------------------------------------------------------------------------------23A GLASS AND GLASSWARE -(1) Sheet glass and plate glass 10% ad 20% of the basicvalorem duty chargeable.(2) Laboratory Glassware 5% ad 10% of the basicvalorem duty chargeable(3) Glass shells, glass globe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »