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

1966 Supreme(MP) 160

P.V.DIXIT, R.J.BHAVE
KANHIRAM RAMGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.K.DUBEY, R.K.Tankha

BHAVE, J.

( 1 ) THE Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue) has made this reference under section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the assessee. The question referred to us for decision is -"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the purchases of hemp jute were not exempt under Section 50 (1) (iii) of the m. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and were liable to purchase tax under section 7 of the said Act?"

( 2 ) THE assessee-firm is a registered dealer having its head-office at Seoni and a branch-office at Calcutta. The assessee deals in various articles including jute. During the assessment period from 21st October 1960 to 8th Novemer 1961, the assessee purchased hemp worth Rs. 11,42,629. 10 from agriculturists and unregistered dealers. No sales tax was payable under Section 6 of the Act on these sales by the agriculturists and unregistered dealers. The hemp urchased by the assessee was not resold in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but was sent to Calcutta. The Sales Tax Officer, Bala-ghat, held that the assessee was liable to pay purchase-tax under Section 7 of the Act. In appeal before th









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