Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1990 (9) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent year 1975-76 (from October 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976) it claimed exemption from payment of purchase tax on its purchase turnover in the sum of Rs. 4,08,306 being the cost of a crane purchased from M/s. Tractors India Ltd., Calcutta, in order to lift the granite slabs and stones from the quarry. The assessing authority, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, XV Circle, Bangalore-9, formed the opinion, as is borne out from his assessment order dated December 3, 1977, that the assessee was a dealer who only purchases and sells granite slabs and is not entitled to purchase a crane under C form and claim benefit available under section 8(3)(b) read with rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Central Sales Tax (Registration and T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 also did not meet with success. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its order dated September 3, 1982, dismissed that appeal. Therefore, the present revision petition. 3.. The question raised by the petitioner is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in finding the assessee-company guilty of an offence under the provisions of section 10 of the Act. 4.. The facts above stated by us are not in dispute. All the three authorities, the assessing authority, first appellate authority and the Tribunal, have proceeded on the assumption that the assessee-company is only a dealer who purchases and sells granite slabs and blocks and no more. Therefore, they came to the conclusion that it was not a per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case, the Supreme Court, having regard to the language of sub-section (3)(b) of section 8 of the Act and rule 13 of the Rules, clearly held that the mechanical apparatus used by the appellant-company before the Supreme Court to blend different grades of ore at the harbour side was machinery used in processing iron ore to bring it to salable commodity before loading it on the ship. In fact, for the appellant before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the mining in preparation of ironore involved seven stages starting from extraction of ore from the earth to the process of blending of the ore and loading it on the ship at the harbour side. After expressly overruling the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nilgiri Ceylon Tea ....