TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether photographic paper, though already subjected to tax on a prior sale under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 or under section 5(1)(cccc)(i) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, could escape levy under section 6D of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 on deemed sales involved in works contracts, and whether rule 3(108) or departmental circulars could extend the exemption.
Analysis: Section 6D was treated as a self-contained provision governing works contract taxation, and Explanation 2 was read as overriding anything contained in the 1941 Act or the 1954 Act. The earlier immunity from second or subsequent sales under the 1954 Act and the concessional scheme under section 5(1)(cccc)(i) were held to operate only within those provisions and not to control tax under section 6D. Rule 3(108) was found to govern deductions only in computing taxable turnover under section 4 or section 8(3) and not under section 6D. The claimed relief under section 6D(2)(a) failed because photographic paper was not declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and section 6D(2)(c) was held inapplicable because the sales in question were only conditionally exempt, not generally exempt. The departmental circular was held to be without legal authority and incapable of overriding the statute.
Conclusion: The applicant was liable to tax under section 6D on the disputed local purchases and did not obtain immunity merely because the goods had already suffered tax at an earlier stage.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
