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

2004 Supreme(SC) 994

Supreme Court Of India
S.N. VARIAVAANDA.K. MATHUR, JJ.
KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN.-Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF KERALA -Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 7391 of 2003,
Decided on September 1,2004

Headnote:

Liabilityto pay Sales Tax -All the authorities below held that the appellant, was not acting as an agent and collecting commission but was actually purchasing in its own name and then selling to others- On these findings, it was held that the appellant was liable to pay sales tax- Held there were "high-sea sales" in favour of the appellant-Therefore the appellant had become the owner of the cement- Once the appellant had become owner, the only way by which the appellant could transfer title was by way of sale- They were rightly held liable to pay tax- Appeal dismissed ( paras 1 and 3 )

ORDER

1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 17 -12-2002. The question is whether the appellant is liable to pay sales tax in respect of cement which it imports for the purpose of distribution to various parties in the State of Kerala. All the authorities below have held that the appellant, being a canalising agency, is not acting as an agent and collecting e commission but is actually purchasing in its own name and then selling to persons who require cement. On these findings, it has been held that the appellant is liable to pay sales tax.

2. Mr Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that no authority has gone into facts to ascertain the manner in which the appellant actually transacts. He suggests that the matter be remitted back to the lower authority for ascertainment of facts.

3. We are unable to accept this submission. We find from the orders below that there are "high-sea sales" in favour of the appellant. This shows that the appellant had become the owner of the cement. Once the appellant had become owner, the only way by which the appellant could transfer title is by way of sale. Therefore on facts already ascertained, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment or in the findings of the lower authorities.

4. We, thus, see no reason to interfere. The civil appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

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