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.
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

        -

        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 upholds Rule 41 interpretation on one percent deduction for goods sold outside Maharashtra.</h1> <h3>Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax</h3> Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax - [1992] 87 STC 186 (SC), 1992 AIR 2078, 1992 (3) SCR 683, 1992 (3) SCC 624, ... Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Rule 41 and Rule 41A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.2. Validity of the deduction of one percent of the sale price of goods despatched outside the State.3. Constitutionality of Rule 41 and Rule 41A.4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to the present case.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Rule 41 and Rule 41A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959:The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Rule 41 and Rule 41A, which provide for the set-off of purchase tax paid by a manufacturing dealer on raw materials against the sales tax payable on the sale of manufactured goods. The appellant argued that the deduction of one percent should be calculated only on the part of the sale price attributable to locally purchased raw materials. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the rules clearly intend for the deduction to be based on the entire sale price of the goods despatched outside the State.2. Validity of the Deduction of One Percent of the Sale Price of Goods Despatched Outside the State:The appellant contended that the deduction of one percent of the sale price of goods despatched to branches outside Maharashtra was unjust and amounted to taxing raw materials purchased outside the State. The Court disagreed, noting that the rules are designed to provide relief to dealers and ultimately benefit consumers. The deduction was seen as a reasonable curtailment of the concession provided by the set-off rules. The Court emphasized that the rules are a concession and not a legal right, and the deduction does not amount to an impermissible tax.3. Constitutionality of Rule 41 and Rule 41A:The appellant argued that the deduction could render the rules unconstitutional by effectively taxing transactions outside the State's jurisdiction. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the rules do not levy any new tax but merely regulate the set-off mechanism. The Court also noted that the State of Maharashtra would not demand or recover any tax not otherwise due, ensuring the rules' constitutionality.4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.:The appellant referenced a recent Supreme Court decision involving Rule 41 to support their case. However, the Court found that the issues in the Bharat Petroleum case were different from those in the present appeals. The Bharat Petroleum case dealt with the set-off of tax on sulphuric acid used in refining crude oil, which was not directly relevant to the current issue of deductions on goods despatched outside the State.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interpretation of Rule 41 and Rule 41A, affirming that the one percent deduction should be calculated on the entire sale price of goods despatched outside Maharashtra. The Court found no constitutional issues with the rules and clarified that the deduction is a permissible curtailment of the set-off concession. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found