Search Results for "Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959"

290 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 290 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Answers Reference Against Assessee in Sales Tax Case — Delivery Orders Not Documents of Title. Delivery orders issued by bankers against airways bills are not documents of title to goods and are not negotiable under section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

The judgment involves multiple Sales Tax References under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, where the common question of law was whether delivery orders...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Cooperative Bank's Writ Petition Against Sales Tax Tribunal's Refusal to Entertain Appeal Under Section 55 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 — Tribunal Directed to Decide Appeal on Merits

The petitioner, Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited, a cooperative bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, filed a writ peti...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Assessee's Exclusion of Sale Proceeds from Turnover in Central Sales Tax Case. Isolated Sale of Discarded Fixed Assets Not Considered Part of Dealer's Business Activity Under Section 2(b) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

The dispute arose out of assessment proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, concerning th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Sales Tax on Furnace Oil Used as Fuel in Manufacturing. Furnace Oil Used as Fuel is Not 'Raw Material' or 'Input' for Production, Hence Not Exempt from Sales Tax Under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

The judgment pertains to a batch of writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the levy of sales tax on furnace oil used by the pet...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Restricts Provisional Attachment to Disputed Amount in MVAT Act Case — Section 48(5) Constitutional Challenge Rejected. Court holds that attachment under Section 35 must be proportionate, and directs respondents to limit attachment to Rs.1.81 crores.

The petitioner, M/s. Premium Paper and Board Industries Ltd., a registered dealer under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act) and the C...