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

1966 Supreme(SC) 237

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
The State of Mysore (In all the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
1. M/s. Guduthur Thimmappa and Son (In C. As. Nos. 714 to 718 and 722 to 723 of 1965) 2. M/s. Guduthur Bros. (In C. As. Nos. 719 to 721 and 724 of 1965), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 714 to 724 of 1965,
D/- `30-9-1966.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Appellant (In all the Appeals); Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, for Respondents (In all the Appeals).

Advocates:
R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, R.N.SACH

The liability to be taxed attaches if the purchase itself by the dealer is within the State.

Headnote:

SALES TAX - Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939) - Ss. 5(2), 3(3) - R. 4-A(iv)(b) - Sales to non-residents - Liability to pay tax - Whether the seller or the buyer is the last dealer - Situs of sale - Whether sales in the course of inter-State trade.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents, registered dealers in cotton, made various purchases of cotton at their places of business and subsequently sold them to different parties, including non-residents. The question arose as to who was liable to pay the sales tax in respect of those transactions of sale of cotton in which the cotton had been sold by the respondents to non-residents.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal and the High Court found that the situs of the sales by the respondents to the non-resident parties was in Bellary where the sales were completed and delivery also took place. The Court also held that the sales were not in the course of inter-State trade.

Issues: 1. Whether the situs of the seller and the buyer determines the applicability of R. 4-A(iv)(b) of the Rules, or the situs of the sale of cotton itself? 2. Whether the outside buyers could be held to be dealers carrying on the business of purchase in the State?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The language of R. 4-A(iv)(b) of the Rules is clear that the tax is to be levied from the dealer who buys it in the State and is the last dealer not exempt from taxation. The test laid down thus is as to who buys it in the State and not who is in the State for purposes of buying the cotton. 2. The outside buyers were all mills which were purchasing cotton bales for use in their manufacturing process and such purchases by them would amount to purchases of raw materials for their business. Purchases of this nature have already been held by this Court to constitute the business of purchase by the buyers.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Judgement

BHARGAVA, J. : These appeals arise out of proceedings for assessment of sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act No. IX of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of certain sales of cotton. The respondents were registered dealers in cotton, including kappas, groundnuts and cotton seeds with their Head Office at Bellary and Branch Offices at a number of places. They were also licensees under S. 8 of the Act in respect of cotton. They made various purchase of cotton at their places of business and subsequently sold them to different parties. Amongst these were a number of persons who were not resident within the area to which the Act applied. The question arose as to who was liable to pay the sales tax in respect of those transactions of sale of cotton in which the cotton had been sold by the respondents to non-residents. When the case came up before the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal determined the course of transactions and held as follows :-

"The examination of the contracts, the invoices, the railway receipts, insurance policies and other documents relating to the disputed turnovers shows that the non-resident foreigners place orders for the required number of bales of cotton specifying the quality and the rate some times on phone which would be confirmed subsequently by Telegrams or letters and finally by written agreements. Thereupon, the appellants consign the cotton bales in their own name, the consignee being the non-resident foreign buyers (except in respect of a total turnover of Rs. 2,93,567-2-0 which would cover the items 1, 3, 5, 7, 31, 32, 33 and 44 of the typed statement of the account for the year 1954-55 and a total turnover of Rs. 3,71,880-13-0 which would cover the items 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36 and 37 of the typed statement of account for the year 1955-56) and send the railway receipts to their bankers at the other end for the collection of the amount. It is seen that notwithstanding the fact that there are specific provisions in the contract that 90 per cent of the invoice amounts should be paid to the bankers when the railway receipts would be delivered to the purchasers, surprisingly the said provision is rendered nugatory by reason of the fact that the appellants despatch the cotton in such a way that the consignee could get cotton bales at the other end even though without any payment to the banker. The moment the appellants consigned the goods, they will have lost complete control and dominion over the cotton thus despatched. Further, non-resident foreign buyers who obtained the necessary transport permit under the Cotton Control Order, 1950, actually insure the cotton bales as the owner thereof and transmit the same from Bellary to the destination. This is so even in cases where the appellants themselves have consigned the goods in their own name, the consignees being themselves. All these facts clearly go to show that the sales are completed at Bellary and the non-resident foreign buyers in whose favour the property in the goods had been transferred actually transported the cotton thus purchased. The State Representative does not seriously dispute about the correctness of the modus operandi of the appellants in their dealings with their purchasers during five years of assessments. Bearing these facts in mind, we shall now proceed to examine each of the contentions raised by the learned counsel".

2. On these facts, the question that fell for determination was whether for purposes of S. 5 (2) of the Act read with R. 4-A (iv) (b) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the respondents were the dealers who bought the cotton in the State and were the last dealers not exempt from taxation under S. 3 (3) of the Act on the amount for which the cotton was bought by them. The contention on behalf of the respondents was that the cotton was sold by them w









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