1. Dispute over the validity of sales tax levied on goods manufactured in one state but sold outside, based on a deeming fiction regarding the situs of sale. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th February, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND V. BOSE, JJ.
Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 412 and 413 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, M/s. Rajeshwari Prasad and S. P. Varma, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. Mahabir Prasad, Advocate-General, for the State of Bihar; Mr. R. C. Prasad, Advocate, with him, for Respondent.
Advocates:
M.C.SETALVAD, MAHABIR PRASAD, R.C.Prasad, RAJESHWARI PRASAD, S.P.Varma
M.C.SETALVAD, MAHABIR PRASAD, R.C.Prasad, RAJESHWARI PRASAD, S.P.Varma
The court established that the doctrine of territorial nexus applies to sales tax. A state may tax a sale if the goods are produced or manufactured within its territory, as this constitutes a sufficient connection, provided the taxable event is the transfer of property in goods.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 - Sections 2(g) and 4(1) - Government of India Act, 1935 - Entry 48, List II - Tax on sale of goods - Territorial Nexus - Validity of a provision deeming a sale to have taken place within a state if the goods are produced or manufactured therein - The taxable event remains the transfer of property in goods; the proviso merely creates a fiction to locate the situs of the sale within the state and does not enlarge the definition of "sale" to include transactions that are not sales (Para 9). Such a tax is not a duty of excise because the liability arises from the act of selling, not the act of manufacturing (Para 10).
(B) Territorial Nexus - The doctrine of territorial nexus is applicable to sales tax legislation. A real and pertinent connection between the taxing state and the transaction is sufficient to uphold the legislative competency. The presence of goods in the state at the time of the agreement for sale or their production/manufacture in the state constitutes a sufficient nexus (Paras 11-16).
(C) Retrospective Levy - Sales tax is legally a liability of the seller. The economic theory that it is an indirect tax passed to the consumer does not alter the legal primary liability of the seller. Therefore, the legislature can impose such tax prospectively or retrospectively (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
A manufacturing company produced goods in one state but sold and delivered them outside that state. The state authorities assessed sales tax based on a statutory provision that deemed sales to have occurred within the state if the goods were manufactured there. The company challenged the validity of the tax, arguing it was an excise duty and that the state lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the provision was within the legislative competency of the state. The tax was a tax on sale, not an excise duty, and the production of goods in the state provided a sufficient territorial nexus for the imposition of the tax. The retrospective application of the tax was also held to be valid.
Issues: Whether the deeming fiction regarding the situs of sale was ultra vires the provincial legislature; whether the theory of territorial nexus applies to sales tax; and whether the tax could be levied retrospectively.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the taxable event was the transfer of title, and the statutory fiction only determined the location of the sale. The production of goods in the state creates a real and pertinent connection (nexus) allowing the state to tax the sale. Legally, the seller is the primary taxpayer, making the tax a direct liability regardless of whether it is passed to the consumer.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the vires of the sales tax act—contending the tax is an excise duty, the nexus is illusory, and retrospective levy is invalid. (Para 5 )
3. The court analyzed the distinction between sales tax and excise duty and affirmed that territorial nexus applies to sales tax legislation when a real connection exists. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Production or manufacture of goods in a state constitutes a sufficient territorial nexus to justify the imposition of sales tax on the subsequent sale of those goods. (Para 16 )
6. How is a tax on the sale of goods by a manufacturer distinguished from a duty of excise?
A duty of excise is primarily levied on a manufacturer irrespective of the commodity's sale. A sales tax is imposed only on the occasion of a sale; if goods are destroyed before sale, no liability arises, as the tax is laid on the producer only qua seller. (Para 10 )
7. Does the doctrine of territorial nexus apply to sales tax legislation?
Yes. If there is a territorial nexus between the person sought to be charged and the state seeking to tax, the statute may be upheld. The connection must be real and not illusory, and the liability imposed must be pertinent to that connection. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. Does the manufacture of goods in a state provide a sufficient nexus for taxing their sale?
Yes. The presence of goods at the date of the agreement for sale in the taxing state, or the production or manufacture of those goods in that state, constitutes a sufficient nexus between the taxing state and the sale. (Para 16 )
9. Can sales tax be imposed retrospectively if it is considered an indirect tax on the consumer?
Yes. Legally, the primary liability to pay sales tax is on the seller. Whether the seller passes this cost to the purchaser is an economic theory and does not alter the legal nature of the tax or prevent retrospective imposition. (Para 17 )
Judgment
S. R. DAS, CJI. : These two appeals, which have been filed with the special leave granted by an order made by this Court on April 3, 1956, and which have been consolidated together by the same order, are directed against the judgment pronounced by the Patna High Court on October 17, 1955, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 577 of 1953, deciding certain questions, referred to it by the Board of Revenue, Bihar under S. 25 of the BIHAR SALES TAX ACT , 1947 (No. XIX of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act. the said references arose out of two orders passed by the Board of Revenue in revision of two sales tax assessment orders made against the appellant company.
2. The appellant company is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its registered office is in Bombay; its factory and works are at Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar and its head sales office is in Calcutta in the State of West Bengal. It has store yards in the States of Madras, Bombay, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Hyderabad, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Andhra. It carries on business as manufacturer of iron and steel and is a registered dealer under the 1947 Act, the registration No. being S. C. 905. Its course of dealing is thus described in the judgment under appeal:
"The intending purchaser has to apply for a permit to the Iron and Steel Controller at Calcutta, who forwards the requisition to the Chief Sales Officer of the assessee working in Calcutta. The Chief Sales Officer thereafter makes a "works order" and forwards it to Jamshedpur. The "works order" mentions the complete specification of the goods required. After the receipt of the "works order" the Jamshedpur factory initiates a "rolling" or "manufacturing" programme. After the goods are manufactured, the Jamshedpur factory sends the invoice to the Controller of Accounts who prepares the forwarding notes, and on the basis of these forwarding notes, railway receipts are prepared. The goods are loaded in the wagons at Jamshedpur and despatched to various stations, but the consignee in the railway receipt is the assessee itself and the freight also is paid by the assessee. The railway receipts are sent either to the branch offices of the assessee or to its bankers, and after the purchaser pays the amount of consideration, the railways receipt is delivered to him. These facts are admitted and the correctness of these facts is not disputed by the State of Bihar."
3. The appellant company was separately assessed for two periods: (1) from July 1, 1947 to March 31, 1948, and (2) from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1949. For the first period the appellant company filed a return under S. 12 (1) of the 1947 Act before the Sales Tax Officer showing a gross turnover of Rs. 12,80,15, 327-8-5. From this gross turnover the appellant company claimed to deduct a sum of Rs. 2,88,60,787-13-0 being the amount of valuable consideration for the goods manufactured at Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar but sold, delivered and consumed outside that State on the ground that in none of the thansactions in respect of the said sum did the property in the goods pass to the purchasers in the State of Bihar. The appellant company further claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,10,87,125-13-0 on account of railways freight actually paid by it for the despatch of the goods. The Sales-tax Officer, by his assessment order dated July 22,1949, disallowed both the claims for deduction and on the other hand added a sum of Rs. 13,66,496-11-0, being the amount of sales tax realised by the appellant company from its purchasers, to its taxable turnover and assessed the appellant company to sales tax amounting to Rs. 15,31,374-5-9. For the second period the appellant company filed a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 21,64,45,450-0-0. From this gross turnover the appellant company claimed a deduction of Rs. 10,71,66, 233-11-0 being the amount of valuable, consideration for goods manufactured at Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar, but sold, deli
