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

2001 Supreme(SC) 308

RUMA PAL, B.N.KIRPAL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash – Respondent


Judgment

KIRPAL, J.

( 1 ) IT is quite evident that Section 206-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 refers to a case where by reason of the payment to the seller the producer gets specific goods mentioned in the Table to the said Section or gets a right to collect or receive those goods by virtue of that payment. In the instant case, when the Government issues a licence, it only enables the licensee to carry trade or business in that item. The payment made by the licensee by way of licence fee does not ipso facto entitle the licensee to lift the goods. For obtaining the goods mentioned in the Table, the licensee has to place an order on the manufacturer or the supplier of the said goods and it is at that point of time that Section 206-C would get attracted.

( 2 ) THE reliance placed on the explanation to sub-section (11) of Section 206-C is misplaced as is evident from what is stated hereinabove. "buyer" would mean where a person by virtue of the payment gets a right to receive specific goods and not where he is merely allowed/permitted to carry on business in that trade. It is for this reason that we had earlier dismissed the special leave petitions and any observations of the High Court n

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