Mumbai Court March 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mangharam and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)393; [1976]37STC599(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The question which has been submitted for our determination in this Reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, is :- 'Whether on a true and proper interpretation of entry No. 14 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sales of ice-cream effected by the Respondent at their place of business at Appollo Bunder were covered by entry No. 14 of Schedule A and as such exempt from tax ?' 2. At all material times the Respondents were registered as a dealer under the said Act. The Respondents sell ice-cream sold by them at their said place of business at Appollo Bunder was exempt from tax under entry 14 of Schedule A to the said Act. The Sales Tax Officer accepted this claim for Respondents as to why the assessment orders for the aforesaid two periods should not be revised by deleting therefrom the exemption given in respect of the sales of ice-cre...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sainath and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)452
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. The question referred to is for our determination is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-Tax had no jurisdiction under section 35 of the Act to reassess the respondent's turnover escaping assessment ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : During the assessment period from 1-4-1964 to 31-3-1965 the assessees (respondents), who are registered as a dealer under the said Act, made certain sales of artificial hair and hair nets. By his assessment order dated 21st September, 1966 the Sales Tax Officer assessed these sales as falling under entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act and levied tax on the same at the rate prescribed in the said entry. After issuing a notice ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kutubali Noorjibhai and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: [1976]37STC432(Bom)
ORDER1. In this matter a consent precise signed by the attorneys for the applicant and the Advocate for the respondents was filed with the Prothonotary pointing out that there is a typographical mistake in the penultimate paragraph of our judgment delivered in the above reference on 20th February, 1975. 2. We find that this is an obvious typographical mistake, and the penultimate paragraph of the said judgment should have read, 'In the result, we answer the question submitted to us in the affirmative'. 3. We, therefore, correct our said judgment accordingly. 4. In the judgment at page 527, the paragraph after the 30th line from the top should be read as follows : 'In the result, we answer the question submitted to us in the affirmative.' 5. Accordingly, the line 'Reference answered in the negative.' at the end of the judgment should be read as 'Reference answered in the affirmative.'. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›