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

        <h1>Supreme Court: Sales to Ministry of Industry not tax-exempt under Bengal Finance Act</h1> <h3>The Union of India and Another Versus Commercial Tax Officer, West Bengal and Others and M/s. Shri Ganesh Jute Mills Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.</h3> The Union of India and Another Versus Commercial Tax Officer, West Bengal and Others and M/s. Shri Ganesh Jute Mills Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the sales made by Shri Ganesh Jute Mills, Ltd. to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Supplies, should be exempt from sales tax under section 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. Whether the newly created Department of Industries and Supplies is the same as the Indian Stores Department and the Supply Department of the Government of India for the purposes of the exemption.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption from Sales Tax:The primary question was whether the sales made by Shri Ganesh Jute Mills, Ltd. to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Supplies, should be deducted from the taxable turnover under section 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The section exempts sales to the Indian Stores Department, the Supply Department of the Government of India, and any railway or water transport administration. The mills argued that their sales to the Ministry of Industry and Supplies should be exempt as the Ministry was essentially a continuation of the Indian Stores Department and the Supply Department. The Commercial Tax Officer disagreed, leading to the legal dispute.2. Nature and Continuity of Departments:The argument hinged on whether the Department of Industries and Supplies, later renamed the Ministry of Industry and Supply, was the same as the Indian Stores Department and the Supply Department. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the mills, holding that the exemption applied. However, on appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, concluding that the Department of Industries and Supplies was not the same as the Indian Stores Department or the Supply Department. The Supreme Court had to determine if the newly created department could be considered the same entity for the purposes of the tax exemption.Supreme Court's Decision:The Supreme Court reviewed the history and functions of the departments involved. It was noted that the Indian Stores Department was established in 1922 and later merged with the Contracts Directorate to form the Supply Department in 1940. The Department of Industries and Supplies was created in 1946, combining the functions of the previous departments and adding new responsibilities. The Court concluded that the new department had wider powers and was not merely a re-designation of the old departments.The Court emphasized that exemptions in tax statutes must be construed strictly. The exemption in section 5(2)(a)(iii) was specific to sales made to the Indian Stores Department and the Supply Department, not to any successor departments with broader functions. The Court found that the Department of Industries and Supplies, and later the Ministry of Industry and Supply, were distinct entities with different scopes and responsibilities. Therefore, sales to these new entities did not qualify for the exemption.Dissenting Opinion:One judge dissented, arguing that the exemption should apply to the purchasing functions of the Government of India, regardless of departmental reorganization. The dissent emphasized that the function of purchasing remained consistent, even if the departmental name and structure changed. The dissenting judge believed that the exemption should cover sales to the Ministry of Industry and Supply as it continued the purchasing activities of its predecessors.Conclusion:The majority of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, ruling that the sales tax exemption did not apply to sales made to the Ministry of Industry and Supply. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming that the newly created department was not the same as the Indian Stores Department or the Supply Department for the purposes of the tax exemption under section 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found