Blog

  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Supreme Court Judgement Of Stone Crusher That Crushed Stone Is Not Manufacturing Goods
Supreme Court Judgement Of Stone Crusher That Crushed Stone Is Not Manufacturing Goods

Supreme Court Judgement Of Stone Crusher That Crushed Stone Is Not Manufacturing Goods

Oct 03 2017 On 15 September 2017 the Honble Supreme Court of India Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the matter of State of Uttarakhand v Kumaon Stone Crusher.

Email:[email protected]

Get Quote
  • Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Mahalaxmi Stores on 22

    Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Mahalaxmi Stores on 22

    The Supreme Court held that planks and rafters were nothing but timber. Ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the crushing of boulders into gitti. Despite crushing gitti would continue to be stone. 11. We have carefully perused the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Modern Proteins Ltd. 1994 95 STC 181.

  • Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 457 NE2d

    Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 457 NE2d

    Although the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the trucks and other transportation devices used by Appellees to transfer the crude stone to the crusher and from the crusher to the stockpiles are an essential and integral part of the procedures by which the unquarried stone is transformed into a marketable product it considered.

  • State Of Maharashtra vs Mahalaxmi Stores on 20 November

    State Of Maharashtra vs Mahalaxmi Stores on 20 November

    This Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher P. Ltd. 2000 3 SCC 525 on an identical question expressed the view that when stone boulders were crushed into stone chips gitti and stone ballast the process could not be termed as manufacture.

  • Kher Stone Crusher v General Manager Madhya Pradesh

    Kher Stone Crusher v General Manager Madhya Pradesh

    Get free access to the complete judgment in Kher Stone Crusher v. General Manager on CaseMine.

  • Stone Crushing Industry In Uttarakhand

    Stone Crushing Industry In Uttarakhand

    Disintegerator For Stone Crushing; Supreme Court Judgement Of Stone Crusher That Crushed Stone Is Not Manufacturing Goods; Crowler Mount Stone Crusher; Stone Crusher Detailed Project Report Bhopal; Railway Track Ballast Stone Type; The World Biggest Stone Crusher; Prosentase Stone Crusher; Used Stone Crushing Machines For Sale; Stone Crushed.

  • State Of Maharashtra v Mahalaxmi Stores Supreme Court

    State Of Maharashtra v Mahalaxmi Stores Supreme Court

    Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher P Ltd. 2000 3 SCC 525 on an identical question expressed the view that when stone boulders were crushed into stone chips gitti and stone ballast the process could not be termed as manufacture.

  • BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH ODISHA SALES TAX

    BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH ODISHA SALES TAX

    not comes under the definition of processing or manufacturing. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel placed reliance on many of the authorities like Commercial Sales Tax Vrs. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd.

  • BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH ODISHA SALES TAX

    BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH ODISHA SALES TAX

    not comes under the definition of processing or manufacturing. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel placed reliance on many of the authorities like Commercial Sales Tax Vrs. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd.

  • State of Uttarakhand Vs Kumaon Stone Crusher Latest

    State of Uttarakhand Vs Kumaon Stone Crusher Latest

    It held that the character of Forest Produce is not lost by such 59 crushing of the stone. High Court of Uttarakhand has taken a contrary view in its judgment dated 01.07.2004 in Kumaon Stone Crusher Supra as noted above. 62. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have relied on few judgments of this Court which need to be noticed.

  • Supreme Court upholds the levy of transit fee on forest

    Supreme Court upholds the levy of transit fee on forest

    Oct 03 2017 On 15 September 2017 the Honble Supreme Court of India Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the matter of State of Uttarakhand v Kumaon Stone Crusher.

  • Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 1983

    Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 1983

    The majority found that the processing of the quarried rock did not commence until it was placed in the crusher and consequently held that the equipment supplies and repairs used in the hauling crude stone and stocking out steps were not directly used in the direct processing of the stone because no direct processing occurred during the transportation i.e.

  • New Tarai Stone Crusher vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30

    New Tarai Stone Crusher vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30

    Oct 30 2018 Kumaon Stone Crusher vs State of Uttarakhand submits that boulders crushed into grits retain same characteristic that is forest produce. By obtaining grits stone chips and dust no new material is obtained. Challenging the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in Ms.

  • Kher Stone Crusher vs General Manager District on 3

    Kher Stone Crusher vs General Manager District on 3

    7. The petitioner is a holder of quarry lease for extracting stones and the stones are crushed into crushers to make gittis ballast or metal of different specified shapes and sizes. The commodity processed or prepared does not remain stone but a new commercial commodity befitting for use in construction of roads or houses is made out.

  • Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 1983

    Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 1983

    Although the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the trucks and other transportation devices used by Appellees to transfer the crude stone to the crusher and from the crusher to the stockpiles are an essential and integral part of the procedures by which the unquarried stone is transformed into a marketable product it considered.

  • STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v MS KUMAON STONE

    STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v MS KUMAON STONE

    The Allahabad High Court in its judgment in Kumar Stone Works Supra decided on 27.04.2005 has given a detailed reasoning for not accepting stone grits stone chips and stone dust as a new commodity. It held that the character of Forest Produce is not lost by such crushing of the stone.

  • Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 457 NE2d

    Indiana Dept of State Revenue v Cave Stone 457 NE2d

    Although the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the trucks and other transportation devices used by Appellees to transfer the crude stone to the crusher and from the crusher to the stockpiles are an essential and integral part of the procedures by which the unquarried stone is transformed into a marketable product it considered.

  • 305 F2d 27 Bookwalter v Centropolis Crusher Company

    305 F2d 27 Bookwalter v Centropolis Crusher Company

    Bookwalter D.C. 168 F.Supp. 33 and this court affirmed at 272 F.2d 391 partially on the basis of our opinion in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Iowa Limestone Company 8 Cir. 269 F.2d 398. Action was withheld on the Directors petition for rehearing until the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v.