SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 421

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









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top