M/S. A & G PROJECTS & TECHNOLOGIES LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

M/S. A & G PROJECTS & TECHNOLOGIES LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Where sales are covered under s.3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and are not entitled to exemption under s.6(2), the tax must be collected by the State from which the movement of goods commenced; the proviso to s.9(1) does not apply in such cases.

Parties
Appellant: M/S. A & G Projects & Technologies Ltd.; Respondent: State of Karnataka
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Central Sales Tax Act 1956, Inter State Sales, Exemption Under S.6(2), Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the CST Act, Section 9(1) Proviso
Taxation Law Sales Tax Central Sales Tax Act 1956 Inter State Sales Exemption Under S.6(2) Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the CST Act Section 9(1) Proviso

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. A & G Projects & Technologies Ltd.

Appellant

State of Karnataka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sales made by the appellant were inter-State sales under s.3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, not entitled to exemption under s.6(2).
  2. 2 Whether the State of Karnataka was the 'Appropriate State' entitled to collect tax under the proviso to s.9(1) in respect of such sales.

Ratio Decidendi

Where sales are covered under s.3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and are not entitled to exemption under s.6(2), the tax must be collected by the State from which the movement of goods commenced; the proviso to s.9(1) does not apply in such cases.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • Civil appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.