SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG, C.J.I. AND P.N. BHAGWATI, J.
Polester and Co. Ltd. etc., Appellants
Versus
Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1290, 1111, 1085, 1352, 1110 of 1977, 236, 458 and 816 of 1976 and 18 of 1975, 1522, 1526 of 1974; Writ Petns. Nos. 166 of 1977, 329 of 1977 and Special Leave Petns. Nos. 2522 and 2524 of 1977
Decided on 20-2-1978.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1290, 1111, 1085, 1352, 1110 of 1977, 236, 458 and 816 of 1976 and 18 of 1975, 1522 and 1526 of 1974.
With
Writ Petns. Nos. 166 and 329 of 1977 and Special Leave Petns. Nos. 2522 and 2524 of 1977.
Trading Engineers etc., Appellants
Versus
Sales Tax Officer and another etc., Respondents.
Part C States Act, 1950 – Section 2 – Lead evidence – Sales deed – Appeal against conviction - on the expiry of two months from the date on which such gross turnover first exceeds the taxable quantum, on all sales effected after such expiry, Sub-section (5) of S. 4 defined taxable quantum to mean in relation to any dealer who imports for sale any goods into Delhi or manufactures or produces any goods for sale, regardless of the value of the goods imported, manufactured or produced, ten thousand rupees, and in relation to any other dealer, thirty thousand rupees. Sub-section (1) of S. 5 provided different rates of tax, according as the goods fell within one category or another, at which the tax payable by a dealer shall be levied on his taxable turnover. What is taxable turnover was defined in sub-s. (2) of S. 5 to mean – Held, Lastly, it was contended that the resales effected by the branches of the assesses outside Delhi could not be regarded as resale’s by assesses within the meaning of S. 5 (2) (a) (ii) and the Second Proviso and hence the assesses must be held to have utilized the goods for a purpose different from that for which the goods were purchased, namely, resale by them and the price of the goods purchased must be included in their taxable turnover under the Second Proviso. But this contention fails to take into account the plain and obvious fact that when the branches of the assesses resell the goods outside Delhi, it is really the assessees who resell the goods, for the branches are not distinct and independent from the assesses but are merely establishments of the assessees. Resales effected by the branches are nothing else than resale’s made by the assesses at the branches and hence it is not possible to say that when the goods were resold by the branches, the resoles were not by the assesses so as to attract the applicability of the Second Proviso - That leaves only one other point and that relates to the imposition of penalty of Rupees two lakhs on the assesses in Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 1977. This penalty was imposed on the assessees on the ground that they failed to include in the returns filed by them for the period from 28th May, 1972 to 29th March, 1973 the price of the goods purchased by them for use as raw-materials in the manufacture of goods for sale and to pay tax on the submission of the returns. There were several grounds on which the imposition of this penalty was challenged on behalf of the assessees, but it is not necessary to refer to all of them, since there is one ground which is, in our opinion, sufficient to invalidate the order imposing the penalty. We have already pointed out that even where the assessees used the goods purchased as raw-materials in the manufacture of goods outside Delhi or having manufactured the goods, sold them outside Delhi, there was no breach of the intention expressed by them in the declarations given to the selling dealers and they could not be said to have utilised the goods for any purpose other than that for which they were purchased so as to attract the applicability of the Second Proviso. Now, if the Second Proviso was not attracted in the case of the assessees even where they used the goods purchased as raw-materials in manufacture outside Delhi or sold the manufactured goods outside Delhi, there could be no obligation on the assessees to include the price of the goods purchased in their returns or to pay tax on the amount of such price along with the returns - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
BHAGWATI, J. :— These appeals raise a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of S. 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter, for the sake of convenience referred to as Delhi). The Act was extended to Delhi subject to certain modifications by a Notification dated 28th April, 1951 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 and it came into force in Delhi on 28th May, 1951 by virtue of a Notification issued under S. 1, sub-s. (3) of the Act. There have been several amendments made in the Act from time since the date of its application to Delhi but we are concerned in these appeals only with the assessment periods 1971-72 and 1972-73 and hence we shall confine ourselves to the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood during these assessment periods.
2. Section 2 enacted the definition provision and Clause (c) of that section defined a dealer to mean any person who carries on the business of selling goods in Delhi. Clause (g) of S. 2 contained the definition of sale. It was a definition in general terms and it made no reference to the situs of the sale. If did not limit the definition to a sale inside Delhi. There was an explanation to this Clause which laid down as to when a sale or purchase shall be deemed to take place inside Delhi. S. 4. sub-section (1) provided that every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act exceeded the taxable quantum at any time within such year shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on all sales effected after the date notified by the Chief Commissioner and sub-section (2) of that Section said that every dealer to whom sub-section (1) does not apply, shall, if his gross turnover calculated from the commencement of any year exceeds the taxable quantum at any time within such year, be liable to any tax under the Act, on the expiry of two months from the date on which such gross turnover first exceeds the taxable quantum, on all sales effected after such expiry, Sub-section (5) of S. 4 defined taxable quantum to mean in relation to any dealer who imports for sale any goods into Delhi or manufactures or produces any goods for sale, regardless of the value of the goods imported, manufactured or produced, ten thousand rupees, and in relation to any other dealer, thirty thousand rupees. Sub-section (1) of S. 5 provided different rates of tax, according as the goods fell within one category or another, at which the tax payable by a dealer shall be levied on his taxable turnover. What is taxable turnover was defined in sub-s. (2) of S. 5 to mean:
"that part of a dealers gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom-
(a) his turnover during that period on;
(i) the sale of goods declared tax-free under S. 6;
(ii) sales to a registered dealer- of goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate or registration of such dealer, as being intended for re-sale by him, or for use by him as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale; and of containers or other materials for the packing of goods of the class or classes so specified for sale;
Provided that in the case of such sales a declaration duly filled up and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold and containing the prescribed particulars on a prescribed from obtainable from the prescribed authority is furnished in the prescribed manner by the dealer who sells the goods:
Provided further that where any goods specified in the certificate of registration are purchased by a registered dealer as being intended for re-sale by him or for use by him as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale, but are utilised by him for any other purpose, the price of the goods purchased shall be allowed to be deducted from the gross turnover of the selling dealer but shall be include
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.