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>Sales Tax Upheld on Building Contract Materials under Sales Tax Act</h1> <h3>Gammon India Private Ltd. Bombay Versus Sales Tax Officer, Irinijalakuda</h3> Gammon India Private Ltd. Bombay Versus Sales Tax Officer, Irinijalakuda - [1962] 13 STC 50 (Ker) Issues:Assessment of sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 on goods involved in a works contract for the year 1955-56.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner, a company, was assessed to sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, for the goods used in a building contract. The assessment was confirmed by the Sales Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The turnover assessed was based on a building contract entered into by the petitioner with another company, where a portion of the total contract amount was treated as assessable turnover under the Act. The petitioner contended that a specific amount should not be subject to sales tax based on the Act's definitions.3. The petitioner argued that the amount in question should not be assessable to sales tax as per the Act's definitions, which would also impact the tax liability on miscellaneous sales turnover. The Act defines turnover, works contract, sale, dealer, and goods, which are crucial for determining tax liability.4. The Act defines turnover as the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold by a dealer, including amounts payable for works contracts. A works contract is defined as an agreement for construction, improvement, or repair of property. The Act also defines sale, dealer, and goods, which are essential for determining tax liability on works contracts.5. The Act's definition of works contract includes agreements for construction, improvement, or repair of property, which clearly encompasses the contract in question. The Act also defines sale as the transfer of property in goods, including those involved in works contracts.6. The Act's definitions of dealer and goods are crucial for determining tax liability. A dealer is defined as a person engaged in buying or selling goods, while goods include movable property, materials, and articles used in construction, improvement, or repair of property. The Act's language is clear in extending tax liability to materials used in building contracts.7. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that only goods 'to be used' in a works contract should attract tax, emphasizing that the Act's provisions and definitions support the assessment of the specific amount in question. Previous judgments have also upheld the broad application of the Act to materials used in building contracts.8. Citing previous judgments and the Act's definitions, the Court held that the assessment of the specific amount as turnover for sales tax was proper. The Court emphasized that the Act's definitions extend tax liability to materials used in building contracts, supporting the Tribunal's decision.9. Previous cases, such as Gannon Dunkerley and Co., have addressed similar contentions regarding the scope of tax liability on materials used in works contracts. The Court reiterated that the Act's definitions and legislative intent support the taxation of materials used in building contracts.10. The Tribunal confirmed that the building contract in question was similar to previous cases where the tax liability on materials used in works contracts was upheld. The consistency in decisions regarding such contracts further supports the assessment of sales tax on the specific amount in question.11. The Court referenced State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. to highlight the essential elements of a sale of goods and the competence of the Legislature to impose tax on materials used in building contracts. The limitations of Entry 48 do not restrict the Act's application to works contracts.12. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the assessment of sales tax on the materials used in the building contract. The judgment reaffirmed the broad scope of tax liability under the Act for materials involved in works contracts.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found