Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • 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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 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
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court rules transactions as sales despite Colliery Control Order, adjusts assessment period.</h1> The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, determining that the transactions constituted sales despite being governed by the Colliery Control ... Whether the supply of coal by the petitioner to the State amounted to a sale? Held that:- Appeal partly allowed. A writ of mandamus will issue directing the State of Rajasthan not to realize sales tax except with regard to the transactions of sale between the period April 1, 1955, and September 6, 1955, both days inclusive. The Sales Tax Officer who is also one of the appellants in this case will make appropriate modifications in the order of assessment in the light of the judgment of this Court. Issues Involved:1. Whether the supply of coal by the petitioner to the State amounted to a 'sale'.2. Whether the transactions were entered into in the course of inter-State trade.3. Whether the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, validated the order of assessment.4. The proper situs of these sales.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the supply of coal by the petitioner to the State amounted to a 'sale':The High Court initially held that the petitioner was not a dealer but merely a broker or middleman, thus not liable for sales tax. However, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was an agent within the Explanation to section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and thus deemed a dealer. The High Court, upon remand, examined whether the supply of coal constituted a sale under the Colliery Control Order, 1945. The High Court concluded that the transactions did not amount to sales due to the lack of volition and mutual assent, essential elements of a sale, as the transactions were governed by the Colliery Control Order. This conclusion was based on the principle established in New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar, which held that compulsory deliveries under government orders do not constitute sales.2. Whether the transactions were entered into in the course of inter-State trade:The High Court determined that the transactions were inter-State sales because the coal was transported from Bengal to Rajasthan under the contract. Article 286(2) of the Constitution, as it stood before the Sixth Amendment, prohibited States from taxing sales in the course of inter-State trade unless Parliament provided otherwise. The High Court found that the transactions fell within this prohibition. However, the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, validated such taxes for the period from April 1, 1955, to September 6, 1955. Therefore, the High Court held that the assessment was valid only for this period and invalid for the remaining period.3. Whether the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, validated the order of assessment:The High Court noted that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, validated the imposition of sales tax on inter-State sales for the period from April 1, 1955, to September 6, 1955. However, the assessment order was a composite one for the entire year 1955-56. The High Court, following the principle in Provincial Government of Madras v. J.S. Basappa, held that a composite and indivisible assessment, which includes both valid and invalid periods, must be declared entirely invalid.4. The proper situs of these sales:The High Court did not extensively deal with the situs of the sales as it was not seriously pressed by the petitioner's counsel. The primary focus was on whether the transactions constituted sales and whether they were inter-State sales.Supreme Court's Judgment:The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, concluding that the transactions were indeed sales. The Court found that the Colliery Control Order did not negate the contractual nature of the transactions. The Court distinguished the present case from New India Sugar Mills Ltd., noting that in the present case, there was mutual assent and a contractual relationship between the parties. The Court also addressed the composite assessment issue, directing that the assessment be modified to exclude the period not validated by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, directing the State of Rajasthan not to realize sales tax except for the period from April 1, 1955, to September 6, 1955. The Sales Tax Officer was instructed to modify the assessment order accordingly. No order as to costs was made due to the divided success.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found