Skip to content


Steelage Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtSales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in19567STC493Tribunal
AppellantSteelage Industries Ltd.
RespondentThe State of Bombay
Excerpt:
.....question having sold certain buses by reason of isolated transactions, they could not be treated as dealers in buses within the meaning of the madras general sales tax act, 1939.in the present case, however, the applicants had been already registered as dealers, and we do not think that this decision is of any guidance in the present case. shri dalai has further argued that when the motor car in question was purchased originally sales tax had to be paid, and that if the sale of it is again subjected to tax there will be double tax. we do not think that there is any substance in this contention, as the car had been used for a number of years before its sale, and it was sold not in its original condition but as a second-hand car.2. in the result, following our previous decision in the.....
Judgment:
1. The applicants sold a motor car on which the sales tax has been levied. This is in accordance with our own decision in the case of Messrs Login Dawlat Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bombay 3 S.T.D. 78.

The motor car in this case was purchased for the use of the managing director of the firm, and the cost of its purchase and the proceeds of its sale were debited and credited in the firm's books of account. The car was actually shown as a part of the assets of the company, and it was sold at a profit. Shri Dalai for the applicants relies on a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Mohanlal Ramkisan [1955] 6 S.T.C. 136, in which it did not appear that the articles in question were regarded as assets of the dealer. It is stated in the judgment that the goods sold were used as second-hand goods forming the assessee's private property and had no connection with any of the business, for which the dealers were registered or liable to be registered. This is not the case here. Shri Dalai has also relied on Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division v. Shri Lakshmi Saraswathi Motor Service [1954] 5 S.T.C. 128, decided by the Madras High Court, in which it was held that the motor transport companies in question having sold certain buses by reason of isolated transactions, they could not be treated as dealers in buses within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.

In the present case, however, the applicants had been already registered as dealers, and we do not think that this decision is of any guidance in the present case. Shri Dalai has further argued that when the motor car in question was purchased originally sales tax had to be paid, and that if the sale of it is again subjected to tax there will be double tax. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention, as the car had been used for a number of years before its sale, and it was sold not in its original condition but as a second-hand car.

2. In the result, following our previous decision in the case of Messrs Login Dawlat Corporation, we dismiss the application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //