SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 356

J.L.KAPUR, J.C.SHAH, M.HIDAYATULLAH
Bayyana Bhimayya – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of A. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, D.GUTPA, K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, T.V.R.TATACHARI

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : These are two appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against a common judgment in a sales tax revision filed by the appellants in the High Court.

2. The facts are as follows : In the year 1952-53, for which the assessment of sales tax was in question, the appellants dealt in gunnies, and purchased them from two mills in Vishakapatnam District and in respect of which they issued delivery orders to third parties, with whom they had entered into separate transactions. The procedure followed by the appellants was this : They first entered into contracts with the Mills agreeing to purchase gunnies at a certain rate for future delivery. Exhibit A-1 is a specimen of such contracts. The appellants also entered into agreements with the Mills, by which the Mills agreed to deliver the goods to third parties if requested by the appellants. The Mills, however, did not accept the third parties as contracting parties but only as agents of the appellants. Exhibits A-2 and A-2(a) are specimen agreements of this kind. Before the date of delivery, the appellants entered into agreements with third parties, by which they charged something extra fro








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top