S.N.VARIAVA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN, S.H.KAPADIA
E. I. D. Parry (India) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Asst. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Chennai – Respondent
Judgment
S.N. Variava, J.—These Appeals are against the Judgment of the Madras High Court dated 8th October, 2001.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The Appellants are the manufacturer of sugar. They purchase sugarcane from farmers. By virtue of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the price for such purchase is statutorily fixed. Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order lays down the minimum price of sugarcane payable by a producer of sugar. This is the price which is payable immediately at the time that the sugar is purchased. Over and above this, by virtue of Clause 5-A, an additional price is also payable. This additional price is to be fixed on the basis of a formula laid down in the first Schedule of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. The Formula given therein is as follows:
R – L + 2A + B
X = ————————
2C
R is the amount in rupees of sugar produced during the sugar year excluding the excise duty paid or payable to the factory by the purchaser. It is evident from the formula itself that the additional price is the amount which is incapable of determination at the time t
State of Tamil Nadu v. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer
Frick India Ltd. v. State of Haryana
U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations v. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association
Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.