SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, C.J.I., K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
M/s National Tractors, Hubli, (in all Appeals) Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore (in all Appeals) Respondent: M/s.Shamalshah Girdhari & Co., Intervener.
Civil Appeals Nos. 801, 796 to 798 of 1969 D/- 15-1-1971,
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Agrawala, Advocate of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Appellant, (In all Appeals); Mr. Somanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, with him), for Respondent, an all appeals); M/s. Venkataranga Iyengar and Vineet Kumar. Advocates, for Intervener.
Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 286 - Sale of tyres and tubes - Imposition of tax – Liability of - Assessee is a dealer in iron ore. It purchases iron ore from mine owners in Hospet and sells them to the State Trading Corporation for export to foreign countries. The assessee and the State Trading Corporation are registered as dealers under Act, 1957 - Whether the property passed to the State Trading Corporation pursuant to contracts entered into between the parties within the State of Mysore? If the property did not so pass to the Corporation the last purchaser would be the assessee - Held, In one of appeals a minor question arose relating to the imposition of tax in respect of sale of tyres and tubes by the assessee to the National Transport Hubli. It was argued before the High Court that assessee was not a regular dealer in tyres and tubes and that there was no profit motive in selling those articles - Before us the learned counsel for the State has quite rightly and properly agreed, in view of the comparatively small amount of tax involved, that the assessee would not be called upon to pay the tax on the sale of those tyres and tubes - Appeals dismissed.
Judgment
GROVER, J.:- These appeals have been brought by special leave against a common judgment of the Mysore High Court.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a dealer in iron ore. It purchases iron ore from mine owners in Hospet and sells them to the State Trading Corporation for export to foreign countries. The assessee and the State Trading Corporation are registered as dealers under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the "Act". According to the agreement between the parties ore was to be transported by rail from Hospet to Hubli and from there by road to Karwar port where it was loaded into ships for transportation to foreign countries. All expenses of transportation from Hospet to the point where the ore was loaded in ships were to be borne by the assessee. The documents relating to transport by rail such as way bills, Railway Receipts etc. were made out in the name of the State Trading Corporation. In these documents the ore was shown as consigned by the State Trading Corporation to itself. The railway wagons for transportation were also arranged by the State Trading Corporation but from Hubli to Karwar it was the assessee who engaged trucks for transporting the ore. All documents of export including the export licences from Karwar to foreign countries and all relevant shipping documents were made out in the name of the State Trading Corporation. The State Trading Corporation paid the price in two instalments. Ninety five per cent of the price was paid against shipping documents and five per cent against the certificate of weight and analysis at the foreign port of discharge. The assessee was, however, enabled by means of an arrangement between the State Trading Corporation and the State Bank and other Banks to raise advances on security of the ore to be adjusted against payment of price by the State Trading Corporation at the point of time mentioned in the contracts. The contracts between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation were described as "F. O. B. T.". The letter T stood for the word "trim" which had reference to the quality of the ore answering to specification contained in the contracts. Under Section 5 (3) read with the Third Schedule of the Act tax was payable on iron ore at the point of last purchase within the State. For the two half yearly periods of 1957-58 and the two subsequent years 1958-59 and 1959-60 the assessing authority held that the assessee was liable to tax being the last purchaser within the State. On appeal the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes held that the last purchases had been made by the State Trading Corporation and not by the assessee and it was, therefore, the former that was liable to pay the tax. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised suo motu the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored that of the assessing authority. The assessee filed an appeal in case of each assessment to the High Court under Section 24 (1) of the Act.
3. The approach of the High Court was on these lines. There were two purchases, one by the the assessee from the mine owner and the other by the State Trading Corporation from it. If the purchase by the State Trading Corporation from the assessee was for the purpose of export then the former would be liable but if the purchase by the State Trading Corporation. was one in the course of export of goods out of the territories of India the last purchase would be that of the assessee from the mine owners and it would be the assessee on whom the incidence of tax would fall. The High Court relied largely on a decision of this Court in B. K. Wadeyar v. M/s. Daulatram Rameshwarlal, (1961) 1 SCR 924 and, after noticing Article 286 of the Constitution, as amended by the Constitution Sixth Amendment Act 1956 and Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 as also the conditions and nature of the contracts entered into between the parties, found that the transactions between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation
referred to : B. K. Wedeyar v. Messrs Daulafram Rameshwarlal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.