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: Felt must be pliable to qualify as 'cloth' for tax exemption. State Govt urged to consider waiving sales tax.</h1> <h3>FILTERCO AND ANOTHER Versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER</h3> FILTERCO AND ANOTHER Versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 180 (SC), [1986] 61 STC 318 (SC), 1986 AIR 626 1986 ... Issues Involved:1. Classification of Compressed Woollen Felts as 'cloth' under Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.2. Applicability of the principle of equitable estoppel based on the Commissioner's 1971 letter.3. High Court's summary dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging the Commissioner's order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Compressed Woollen Felts as 'cloth' under Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958:The primary issue in this case is whether the Compressed Woollen Felts manufactured by the appellants qualify as 'cloth' under Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, which would exempt them from sales tax. The appellants argued that their product should be classified as 'cloth' and thus be eligible for tax exemption. The manufacturing process of the felt involves compressing woollen fibers and subjecting them to heat and moisture, resulting in a non-woven material. The Commissioner of Sales Tax initially exempted the product based on a specimen submitted in 1971. However, in 1982, the Commissioner revised this stance, citing a Supreme Court judgment that non-woven felts are not 'woollen fabrics' and thus do not qualify for exemption.The Supreme Court emphasized that for a product to be classified as 'cloth,' it must be pliable and capable of being wrapped, folded, or wound around, as understood in common parlance. The Court held that only those varieties of felt that satisfy the test of pliability can be classified as 'cloth.' The Court agreed with the Commissioner's assessment that only 5 out of 26 samples met this criterion and were thus eligible for tax exemption.2. Applicability of the principle of equitable estoppel based on the Commissioner's 1971 letter:The appellants contended that the principle of equitable estoppel should prevent the respondents from changing their stance on the tax exemption, based on the 1971 letter from the Commissioner. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the 1971 letter only referred to one specimen of felt, and there was no evidence to show which of the 26 varieties was sent as the specimen. Therefore, the principle of equitable estoppel did not apply.3. High Court's summary dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging the Commissioner's order:The High Court dismissed the appellants' Writ Petition without examining the merits, stating that the appellants had the option to appeal the Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, noting that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 42-B(2) was binding on the assessing authority. The Court highlighted that requiring the appellants to appeal would be futile, given the Commissioner's detailed order. The Supreme Court decided to address the merits of the case directly, rather than remitting it back to the High Court, to provide a final resolution.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's order, affirming that only the pliable varieties of felt qualify as 'cloth' and are eligible for tax exemption. The Court dismissed the appeal but suggested that the State Government consider waiving the sales tax for the period between 1971 and January 1983, given the appellants' reliance on the earlier exemption letter. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found