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

1973 Supreme(SC) 408

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., H.R. KHANNA, K.K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND P.N. BHAGWATI, JJ.
M/s. Binani Bros. (P.) Ltd., Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
1. Writ Petn. No. 39 of 1969.
II. Writ Petn. No. 92 of 1969.
Writ Petn. Nos. 39 of 92 of 1969, D/- 11-12-1972.

Advocates:
C.M.KOHLI, G.R.CHOPRA, G.S.CHATTERJEE, GOBIND DAS, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.P.NAIR, V.M.TARKUNDE

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 31(1) and 286(1) (b) - Indian Companies act, 1913 - Bengal Finance Act, 1941 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 5 (2) - Essential Commodities Act, 1951 - Company - Sales - Purchase Goods From Foreign Sellers - Import Licence - Whether, on basis of Annexure P-1 Order, respondent No. 4 was entitled to deduct Rs. 60,780/- from amount due to petitioner in respect of pending bills - Whether claim of respondents to recover a further sum of Rs. 2,35,130.01 from petitioner is justified – Held, In case under consideration Court is concerned with sales made by petitioner as principal to DGS & D - No doubt for effecting these sales, petitioner had to purchase goods from foreign sellers and it was these purchases from foreign sellers which occasioned movement of goods in course of import - There was no obligation under contracts on part of DGS & D to procure import licences for petitioner - On other hand, recommendation for import licence made by DGS & D did not carry with it any imperative obligation upon Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to issue import licence - Though under contract DGS & D undertook to provide all facilities for import of goods for fulfilling contracts including an Import Recommendation Certificate, there was no absolute obligation on DGS & D to procure these facilities - And, it was obligation of petitioner to obtain import licence - Therefore, even if contracts envisaged import of goods and their supply to DGS & D from out of goods imported it did not follow that movement of goods in course of import was occasioned by contracts of sale by petitioner with DGS & D - Petitions allowed.

Judgment

MATHEW, J. :- These are petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitutions praying for issue of appropriate direction or order for the enforcement of the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 31(1) of the Constitution.

2. The question raised in the two petitions is the same we propose to deal with Writ Petition No. 39 of 1969 and our decision there will govern and dispose of Writ Petition. 92 of 1969.

3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies act, 1913. It has its registered office in Calcutta and a branch office at Binani House, Khundi Katra, Mirzapur, U.P. The petitioner is an importer and a dealer in non-ferrous metals like zinc, lead, copper tin, etc. and is on the approved list of registered suppliers to the Directorate General of Suppliers and Disposals, hereinafter referred to as DGS & D. It is also a registered dealer in the State of West Bengal under the Bengal Finance Act, 1941 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner used to procure non-ferrous metals from various countries and also from within the country for fulfilling its contracts with the Government of India through the DGS & D. The import of non-ferrous metals was under Open General Licence till June 30, 1957. Thereafter, a licensing system was introduced by the Government of India and the established traders including the petitioner were asked to get their quotas fixed on the basis of their past imports. On April 2, 1958, the Government of India promulgated the Non-ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958, under the Essential Commodities Act, 1951 by virtue of which free sale of copper was banned. Any import of copper by the established licence holders was to be distributed under the directions of the Controller of Non-ferrous Metals. Under the Non-ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958, and also under the Import Trade Regulations, the established importers were not free to sell the metals imported by them against their quota licences even to the DGS & D. The petitioner, in order to effect supplies to the DGS & D had to obtain additional import licence. Under the Import Trade Control Policy, the established importers including the petitioner obtained quota licences for import of non-ferrous metals for the licensing period up to April, 1964-March, 1965, but the imports mentioned here were to be distributed only under the directions of the Controller of Non-ferrous Metals or the Import Trade Control Authority. On September 14, 1965, the Government of India promulgated the Scarce Industrial Materials Control Order, 1965, under the Defence of India Rules Stocks of non-ferrous metals including incoming imports were thus frozen. The Non-ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958, was repealed, the Scarce Industrial Materials Control Order, 1965 was also repealed on June 6, 1966. The Government of India, in placing orders with the petitioner used to grant import licences in terms of the contract. The petitioner had been importing and supplying non-ferrous metals to respondents 1, 2, and 3 during the last 19 years. Respondent No. 2 had agreed to pay and was paying the Central Sales Tax and / or West Bengal Sales Tax whichever was applicable to the petitioner in terms of the contract. In 1966, this Court held in K. G. Khosla and Co. v. Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, (1966) 3 SCR 352 hereinafter referred to as the Khosla Case, that the sale by Khosla & Co. to DGS & D in India of axle-box bodies manufactured in Belgium by their principal occasioned the movement of goods in course of import and sales tax was not exigible on the transaction in view of Section 5 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On the basis of this judgment, respondent No. 2 issued an order (Annexure P-1) to all the authorities concerned including respondent No. 4, namely, the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, directing that sales tax should not be allowed in respect of supply of stores which has been specifically importe





















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