SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Commissioner of Taxes Assam (In both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd., Gauhati (In both the Appeals), Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 199 and 200 of 1966, dated 27-10-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Appellant (in both the Appeals): Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, for Respondent (In both the Appeals).
ASSAM SALES TAX ACT, 1947 - S. 2(h) - S. 5 - S. 6 - SALE OF HYDROGENATED OIL IN CONTAINERS - WHETHER VALUE OF CONTAINERS ASSESSABLE TO SALES TAX - HELD, YES, IF THERE IS AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF SUCH CONTAINERS.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a registered dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, was assessed to sales tax for the periods ending September 30, 1959, and September 30, 1960. The Sales Tax Officer held that hydrogenated oil was exempt from sales tax but the value of the containers should be assessed at Re. 1 for each container of hydrogenated oil and 2 annas for salt bag and a small mustard oil tin which are other exempted goods. The respondent appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes and the Assam Board of Revenue, but the appeals were dismissed. The respondent then filed an application under S. 32 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, for reference of two questions of law to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court answered the first question against the assessee, holding that the delivery of goods to the Assam Rifles and NFFA at Rowriah Air Port for consumption outside the State of Assam did not constitute a sale liable to Sales Tax under the Act. With regard to the second question, the High Court held that the value of the containers was not assessable to sales tax "unless separate price has been charged for the containers". The High Court took the view that there was no evidence to show that actually separate price was paid for the containers and hence there was no sale and there could not be any tax on the containers.
Issues: Whether the value of containers of hydrogenated oil is assessable to sales tax under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in holding that unless a separate price has been charged for the containers the value of the containers is not assessable to sales tax. The Court held that it is well established that in order to constitute a sale it is necessary that there should be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to goods, the agreement must be supported by money consideration, and that as a result of the transaction the property should actually pass in the goods. The Court further held that the contract of sale may be express or implied and that in the instant case, the question as to whether there is an agreement to sell packing material is a pure question of fact depending upon the circumstances found in each case.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed that the answer to the second question should be that the value of containers of hydrogenated oil is assessable to sales tax under the Act if there is an express or implied agreement for the sale of such containers.
Judgment
RAMASWAMI, J. : These appeals are brought, by special leave, from the judgement of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, dated May 20, 1964 in Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1963.
2. The respondent is a registered dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act (Act XVII of 1947). For the two periods ending September 30, 1959 and September, 30, I960, the Sales Tax Officer assessed the respondent to sales tax holding that hydrogenated oil was exempt from sales tax but the value of the containers should be assessed at Re. 1 for each container of hydrogenated oil and 2 annas for salt bag and a small mustard oil tin which are other exempted goods for the period ending September 30, 1959. For the other period ending September 30, 1960, the value of the containers of the exempted goods was estimated at Rs. 21,500. The respondent preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, but the appeals were dismissed. The respondent preferred second appeals before the Assam Board of Revenue which by its order, dated June 17, 1963 also dismissed the appeals. The respondent thereafter filed an application under S. 32 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, for reference of the following two questions of law to the High Court:
1. Whether delivery, of goods made to the Assam Rifles and NFFA, at Rowriah Air Port for consumption outside the State of Assam, constitutes a sale liable to Sales Tax under the Act ?
2. Whether the value of the containers, of hydrogenated oil is assessable to Sales Tax under the Act though the oil itself is not taxable under it?"
By its judgment, dated May 20, 1964 the High Court answered the first question against the assessee. With regard to the second question, the High Court held that the value of the containers was not assessable to sales tax "unless separate price has been charged for the containers". The High Court took the view that there was no evidence to show that actually separate price was paid for the containers and hence there was no sale and there could not be any tax on the containers. The High Court accordingly answered the second question in favour of the assessee.
3. The question presented for determination in these appeals is whether the value of containers of hydrogenated oil is assessable to sales tax under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.
4. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Naunit Lal contended that the High Court has erred in holding that unless a separate price has been charged for the containers the value of the containers is not assessable to sales tax. It was submitted that the parties may have intended in the circumstances to sell the hydrogenated oil apart from the containers; and the mere fact that the price of the containers was not separately fixed would make no difference to the assessment of sales tax. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant is well founded and must be accepted as correct. It is well established that in order to constitute a sale it is necessary that there should be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to goods, the agreement must be supported by money consideration, and that as a result of the transaction the property should actually pass in the goods. Unless all the ingredients are present in the transaction there conic be no sale of goods and sales tax cannot be imposed [State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras)], 1959 SCR 379: But the contract of sale may be express or implied. In Hyderabad Deccan Cigrarette Factory v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1966) 17 STC 624 (SC), it was held by this Court that in a case of this description what the Sales-tax authorities had to do was to ask and answer the question whether the parties, having regard to the circumstances of the case, intended to sell or buy the packing materials or whether the subject-matter of the contracts of sale was only an exempted article, and packing materials did not form part of the bargain at all, but were used by the sellers as a convenient an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.