SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, A.N. RAY, I.D. DUA, S.C. ROY, D.G. PALEKAR AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. (In C. As. Nos. 2002 to 2005 of 1968). Indian Sugars and Refineries Ltd. (In C. As. Nos. 2014 to 2017 of 1968), Appellants
Versus
State of Mysore and others (In all the Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2002 to 2005 and 2014 to 2017 of 1968, D/- 1-11-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s. G. Vasanta Pai, G. L. Sanghi, P. C. Bhartari and B. Datta, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Company, for Appellants (In all the appeals); Mr. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. S. Javali and R. B. Datar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In all the Appeals).
Sugarcane Cess (Validation) Act, 1961 - Mysore Sales Tax Act - Section 2 (k) - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3 - Defence of India Act, 1962 - Section 3 - Defence of India Rules - Rule 125-B - Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 15 – Assessment - Levy any purchase tax - Appellants are India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. and the Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. The India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. is situated at Hospet in Bellary District in Mysore and Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. is situated at Munirabad in Raichur District in Mysore – Civil Appeals impeached demand & collection made against appellant for large sums of money as and for purchase tax and penalty on the purchase of sugarcane from growers for the period 1April, 1962 to 30 June, 1967 and further asked for refund of large sum of money collected as purchase tax - Held, This Court in case of Tata Iron &Steel Co., 1958 SCR 1355 said This is further made clear by the fact that the registered dealer need not, if he so pleases or chooses, collect tax from purchaser and sometimes by reason of competition with other registered dealers he may find it profitable to sale his goods and to retain his old customers even at sacrifice of the sales tax - It therefore follows that appellants cannot impeach the imposition or levy of sales tax on ground that appellants could not collect from the purchasers of sugar purchase tax paid by appellants on purchase of sugarcane - High Court rightly did not entertain this contention because there were no materials to support contention - Appeals dismissed.
Judgment
RAY, J.:- These appeals are by certificate against the judgment and order dated 16 April, 1968 of the High Court of Mysore dismissing the applications of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs, orders and directions prohibiting the respondent-State of Mysore and the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes at Bangalore from levying or taking proceedings to levy any purchase tax on purchase of sugarcane from the grower or from collecting or taking any proceedings for recovery of any such tax with or without penalty from the appellants. The appellants also asked for orders, writs and directions for refund of several sums of money collected as and for purchase tax.
2. The appellants are the India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. and the Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. The India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. is situated at Hospet in Bellary District in Mysore and the Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. is situated at Munirabad in Raichur District in Mysore.
3. The appellant, the Indian Sugars and Refineries Ltd. in four applications now Civil Appeals No. 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2014 of 1968 impeached the demand & collection made against the appellant for large sums of money as and for purchase tax and penalty on the purchase of sugarcane from the growers for the period 1April, 1962 to 30 June, 1967 and further asked for refund of large sum of money collected as purchase tax.
4. The appellant Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. in four applications now Civil Appeals No. 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2002 of 1968 asked for similar orders and directions in respect of the period 1 July, 1963 to 30 June, 1967.
5. In the fifties practically all the States in which sugarcane was grown for the purpose of manufacturing sugar used to levy cess on sugarcane brought into the premises of sugar factories. This Court in Diamond Sugar Mills v. State of U. P. (1961) 3 SCR 242 held that Section 3 of the U. P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 which empowered the Governor of the State to impose cess on entry of sugarcane into the premises of a factory did not fall within Entry 52 of List II and as there was no entry in the State List or in the Concurrent List in which the said Act could fall, it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The decision of this Court was given on 13 December, 1960. The Sugarcane Cess (Validation) Act, 1961 was passed by Parliament validating the imposition of collection of cess on sugarcane under several State enactment s before the commencement of the Validation Act of 1961.
6. The Mysore State Legislature imposed tax on purchase of sugarcane into force on 1 October, 1961, by Mysore Act No. 11 of 1961 which cane purchased by sugar factories. Sugarcane was included at Serial No. 11-A in the Third Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 The relevant provision in the Mysore Act is as follows:-
"11-A Sugarcane Purchased by the last dealer in the State liable to tax under this Act. fifteen per cent".
7. As a result of the amendment the appellants were subjected to levy of tax on purchase of sugarcane.
8. The appellants raised three principal contentions. First, there was no mutual assent by and between the appellants and the growers of sugarcane in regard to supply of sugarcane by the growers and the acceptance by the factories and therefore there was no purchase and sale of sugarcane. Secondly, the appellants are not dealers within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. Third, the levy of tax on purchase of sugarcane at different rates in different States was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14.
9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions on the first ground as to whether there was a purchase or sale of sugarcane the relevant legislation has to be looked into and facts and circumstances have to be ascertained for finding out as to what the actual transaction was.
10. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Central Government in 27 August, 1955 made
referred : Diamond Sugar Mills V. State of U P
Chitter Mal Narain Das v.Commr of State Sales-tax
explained : State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerlay and CO
Tata Iron and Steel Co Ltd v. State of Bihar
distinguished : New India Sugar Mills v. Commr of Sales-tax Bihar
relied upon : Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd v. State of Madras
Andhra Suagar Ltd v. State of A P
Statutory compulsion does not negate the existence of a sale; enforced transactions under legislative measures are still legally recognized as sales.
The court ruled that executive instructions cannot override statutory rights and that monopolizing trade through G.O. No. 2976 was unlawful and unconstitutional.
Planting and transport subsidies paid to sugarcane growers are considered part of the sale price and must be included in taxable turnover; penalties for earlier non-inclusion are unjustified due to l....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State lacked the statutory basis to levy an Advisory Price over and above the minimum price fixed by the Central Act, and the enactment of....
The court ruled that administrative actions infringing rights must follow principles of natural justice, requiring a hearing before imposing restrictions under the Sugarcane (Control) Order.
The fixation of sugarcane prices must consider the current year's production costs and not rely on previous seasons' recoveries, ensuring proper stakeholder consultation.
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.