Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Supreme Court affirms inclusion of railway freight in sale price under Sales Tax Act

        Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan & JK. Synthetics Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Kota

        Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan & JK. Synthetics Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Kota - [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC), [1978] 4 SCC 271, ... Issues Involved:
        1. Taxability of railway freight under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
        2. Maintainability of the writ petition.
        3. Definition and inclusion of 'sale price' under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
        4. Impact of the Cement Control Order, 1967, on the inclusion of railway freight in the sale price.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Taxability of Railway Freight:
        The primary issue was whether the railway freight on cement sold under the Cement Control Order, 1967, should be deducted from the taxable turnover or treated as part of the sale price and taxed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The petitioner argued that the railway freight should be deducted from the taxable turnover as it was separately charged to the purchaser. However, the assessing authority and the High Court held that the railway freight formed part of the sale price because the price fixed under the Cement Control Order was 'f.o.r. destination,' meaning inclusive of freight. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the amount of freight forms part of the sale price within the meaning of the first part of the definition of 'sale price' under the Act.

        2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
        The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner should have exhausted the alternative remedies provided under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act before approaching the High Court. The High Court agreed, stating that it is not the function of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to determine the question of taxability, which depends on a precise definition of facts. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedies of appeal and revision provided under the Act.

        3. Definition and Inclusion of 'Sale Price':
        The definition of 'sale price' under Section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was crucial in determining whether the railway freight should be included in the taxable turnover. The definition includes any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof, other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged. The Supreme Court held that the railway freight, being part of the 'f.o.r. destination' price, forms part of the sale price and is not separately charged, thus it should be included in the taxable turnover.

        4. Impact of the Cement Control Order, 1967:
        The Cement Control Order, 1967, which controls the price of cement, was central to the issue. According to Clause 8 of the Order, the price of cement was fixed 'f.o.r. destination,' meaning inclusive of freight. The Supreme Court noted that the Control Order is designed to ensure the availability of cement at a uniform price throughout India, irrespective of the distance from the place of manufacture. The Court held that the provisions of the Control Order override any contractual terms to the contrary, and the freight forms part of the sale price as per the statutory scheme of the Control Order.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and the order of the sales tax authority, dismissing the appeals. The Court held that the amount of freight forms part of the sale price within the meaning of the first part of the definition under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court also emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found