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

1961 Supreme(SC) 101

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th March, 1961
S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Endupuri Narasimham and Son, Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and others, Respondents.
Petn. No. 12 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. Gopalkrishnan, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Petitioners; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, Advocates with him) for Respondents.

Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, P.L.VOHRA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN

A purchase made inside a State, for sale outside the State cannot itself be held to be in the course of inter-State trade, and the imposition of a tax thereon is not repugnant to Art. 286(2) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

SALES TAX - INTER-STATE TRADE - PURCHASE OF GOODS INSIDE THE STATE FOR SALE OUTSIDE THE STATE - NOT INTER-STATE TRADE - TAXABLE UNDER STATE SALES TAX ACT - ORISSA SALES TAX ACT (14 OF 1947), S. 5(2)(A)(II).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business in Orissa, purchased goods inside the State and sold them to dealers outside the State. The Sales Tax Officer included the purchase of goods in the taxable turnover of the petitioner and imposed a tax thereon. The petitioner challenged the validity of the tax on the ground that the purchases were made in the course of inter-State trade, and that a tax thereon was in contravention of Art 286(2) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the purchases made by the petitioner were not in the course of inter-State trade, and that the imposition of sales tax thereon was not repugnant to Art. 286(2) of the Constitution. The Court observed that in order that a sale or purchase might be inter-State, it is essential that there must be transport of goods from one State to another under the contract of sale or purchase.

Issues: Whether the purchases made by the petitioner were in the course of inter-State trade, and whether the imposition of sales tax thereon was repugnant to Art. 286(2) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the transactions of sales which have been taxed were wholly inside the State of Orissa. They were sales by persons in the State of Orissa to persons within the State of Orissa, of goods which were in Orissa. The fact that the purchaser sold those very goods to dealers outside the State is not relevant, as those sales are distinct and separate from the sales on which the taxes in question have been imposed. The present levy is not on the sales by the petitioner to persons outside the State, but on the purchases by him inside the State. The former sales are in the course of inter-State trade, and are not taxable under Art. 286(2), but the latter are purely intra-State sales, and a tax imposed thereon does not offend Art. 286(2).

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. : The petitioner is a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business at Berhampur in the State of Orissa, and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Its business consists in the purchases of castor seeds, turmeric, gingili and other commodities locally, and selling them to dealers outside the State. The Sales Tax Officer, Berhampur, included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner the purchase of goods made by it inside the State but sold, as aforesaid, to dealers outside the State and imposed a tax of Rs. 27,161-13-0 on account of such sales during the sixteen quarters commencing from April 1, 1952, and ending with March 31, 1956. In the present application filed under Art. 32, the petitioner challenges the validity of the tax on the ground that the purchases in question were made in the course of inter-State trade, and that a tax thereon was in contravention of Art 286(2).

2. The impugned tax has been levied under S. 5 of the Act, which, omitting what is not relevant, runs as follows:-

5. (1) The tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be levied at the rate of one quarter of an anna in the rupee on his taxable turnover:

X X X

2. In this Act the expression "taxable turnover" means that part of a dealer s gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom:

(a) his turnover during that period on-

X X X

(ii) sales to a registered dealer of goods specified in the purchasing dealer s certificate of registration as being intended for resale by him in Orissa or for use by him in the execution of any contract in Orissa, and on sales to a registered dealer of containers or other materials for the packing of such goods:

Provided that when such goods are used by the registered dealer for purposes other than those specified in his certificate of registration the price of goods so utilised shall be included in his taxable turnover.

X X X

3. It will be seen that under this section when a sale takes place, the seller has to include it in his taxable turnover; but when the sale is to a registered dealer who declares that his purchases are for resale in Orissa, then it is excluded from the seller s turnover. If the registered dealer-purchaser sells the goods outside the State in breach of the condition, the purchasers by him are liable to be included in his turnover, and assessed to sales tax. That precisely is what has happened in this case. The sales to the petitioner were not included in the taxable turnover of the sellers by reason of the registration certificate which the petitioner had obtained on a declaration that the goods were to be resold in Orissa. But in violation of this declaration he sold the goods to dealers outside the State, and so he became liable to be taxed under S. 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that these purchases were made in the course of inter-State trade, and that the imposition of sales tax thereon is, in consequence, ultra vires. The provision applicable is Art. 286(2), as it stood prior to the sixth amendment, and it ran as follows:

"Except in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, no law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce." The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that as the goods were purchased for the purpose of being sold to dealers outside the State, and they were in fact so sold, the purchases were in the course of inter-State trade, and the levy of tax thereon was within the prohibition enacted by Art. 286(2). We do not agree with this contention. The transactions of sales which have been taxed were wholly inside the State of Orissa. They were sales by persons in the State of Orissa to persons within the State of Orissa, of goods which were in Orissa. The fact that the purchaser sold tho




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 Back to top