Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusHYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTION LTD. ETC. ETC.

1994 INSC 17928 April 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a sales‑tax appellate authority could entertain a Form‑C declaration when it had not been filed before the first assessing authority under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957. The revenue argued that Rule 12(7) limited the filing of Form‑C to the time of assessment by the first assessing

PHOOIL CHAND GUPTAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1997 INSC 4621 January 1997

M/s. Phool Chand Gupta, a dealer in oilseeds, claimed exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act for the sale of Mohwa seeds purchased in transit and sold to dealers outside Andhra Pradesh. The Deputy Commissioner withdrew the exemption because the dealer had not furnished Form C, a requirement under Rul

STATE.OF H.P. AND ORS.versusGUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 29818 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision allowing a writ petition under Article 226 despite the existence of statutory remedies. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. was held to be a "prestigious cement industrial unit" entitled to sales‑tax exemption from the date it commenced commercial production (2

M/S VELLANKI FRAME WORKSversusTHE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

2021 INSC 2013 January 2021Dismissed

M/s Vellanki Frame Works imported timber and claimed exemption from Central Sales Tax under Section 5(2) of the CST Act, arguing that the goods were sold on the high seas to end‑buyers before crossing India’s customs frontiers, making the sale a "sale in the course of import". The Commercial Tax Officer and the High Co

M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 96512 October 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

The appellants, registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged the denial of input tax credit (ITC) on inter‑state sales where Form C was not filed, contending that Section 19(5)(c) of the Act and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Rules were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the provision is a v

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusSARVOTAM VEGETABLE PRODUCT ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 4999 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, dealers in edible oils and stainless steel, made numerous inter‑state sales and furnished C‑forms obtained from their purchasers in their tax assessments. A survey revealed many of these C‑forms to be invalid or spurious, leading the tax authorities to issue notices for additional tax and penalty. The

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search