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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 154

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. SINHA, J.
Indian Standard Wagon
Versus
Commercial Tax Officer
Matter No.161 of 1955
Decided On : 29-05-1958

Advocates:
P.P. Ginwala, for Petitioner.

The Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (VII of 1956) validated the levy of tax on inter-State sales during the period between April 1, 1951 and September 6, 1955.

Headnote:

SALES TAX - Inter-State trade or commerce - Exemption - Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (VII of 1956) - Whether validated the levy of tax on inter-State sales during the period between April 1, 1951 and September 6, 1955 - Held, yes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, manufactured railway rolling stock and had been doing so for a long number of years. On or about July 2, 1951, the Railway Board placed an order with the petitioner for 3500 Indian Railway Standard Broad Gauge 4-wheeled covered wagons "C. R." type, against its programme for the year 1952-53. The order was accepted by the petitioner by their letter dated July 28, 1951. The wagons were meant for the Western Railway which is situated wholly outside the State of West Bengal, having its headquarters at Ajmer. Between December 10, 1952 and November 27, 1953, the petitioner duly delivered the said 1,800 wagons at its work siding at Burnpur. Thereafter the petitioner sent its bills to the Eastern Railway, Calcutta. On or about May 23, 1953 certain bills were sent back on the ground that they related to goods meant for consumption outside West Bengal, and, therefore, no sales-tax was payable, but the matter had to await the decision of the West Bengal Sales-tax Authorities. Similar intimations were received by the petitioner from the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounting Officer, Eastern Railway. The petitioner submitted a return of sales-tax for the year ending March 31, 1953. In the return, the petitioner showed a gross turnover of Rs. 2,74,44,544/-, out of which, a deduction was made for Rs. 84,90,470/- under the heading "Sales to railways for consumption outside West Bengal". This represented the value of 803 wagons which were sold and delivered within the accounting year, that is, up to March 31, 1953 to the Western Railway. On or about January 20, 1955 the Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Charge rejected the above-mentioned deduction and imposed sales-tax to the extent of Rs. 3,87,343/3/6. On or about March 30, 1955 a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed for non-payment of the sales-tax. On or about April 16, 1955 the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4. On or about July 29, 1955 the order of penalty was set aside, but otherwise the appeal was dismissed. Meanwhile, on June 24, 1954 the petitioner submitted a return of sales-tax for the year ending March 31, 1954. In the return, the petitioner deducted from the gross turnover the sum of Rs. 1,,34,48,084/- being the value of 997 wagons sold and delivered during the accounting period ending on March 31, 1954. The value of 183 wagons and 30 steel coaches supplied in West Bengal is mentioned as also of a sum of Rs. 66,492/- deducted in respect of sales prior to March 31, 1949, but nothing was heard in the argument with regard to this item, and the court need not deal with them. In all these returns the deductions were claimed to be on the ground that the sale was of goods required for consumption outside the State of West Bengal. The deductions were however disallowed. Thereafter, certain proceedings were commenced for realisation of the tax. The petitioner issued a Rule on or about September 8, 1955 and is directed against the assessment orders whereby the deductions claimed as aforesaid have been disallowed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the transactions in question were in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and were, therefore, exempt from State sales tax under Article 286(2) of the Constitution. However, the court also held that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (VII of 1956) validated the levy of tax on inter-State sales during the period between April 1, 1951 and September 6, 1955, and that the respondents were therefore within their rights in imposing sales tax upon the transactions in question.

Issues: 1. Whether the transactions in question were in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and were, therefore, exempt from State sales tax under Article 286(2) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (VII of 1956) validated the levy of tax on inter-State sales during the period between April 1, 1951 and September 6, 1955?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transactions in question were in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and were, therefore, exempt from State sales tax under Article 286(2) of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the purchaser and the seller were in different States, that the contract of sale contemplated movement of the goods over the State boundary, and that the goods were intended to be consumed outside the State. 2. The court also held that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (VII of 1956) validated the levy of tax on inter-State sales during the period between April 1, 1951 and September 6, 1955. The court reasoned that the Act validated the existing law, which included the power to tax inter-State sales, and that the ban on such taxation imposed by Article 286(2) of the Constitution had been lifted by the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application and held that the respondents were within their rights in imposing sales tax upon the transactions in question.

ORDER : This application and a number of other applications involve the question of inter-State trade and commerce and the imposition of sales-tax in respect thereof by the State. They all involve a further question about the applicability to such transactions of a Central Act, namely, the Sales-tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 being Act No. VII of 1956. These cases have been heard together and common sets of argument were advanced. This particular case, however, has some special features inasmuch as (1) it is not an instance of what has been called an "explanation sale", and (2) no point has been taken herein about any violation of the petitioners fundamental rights under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. It will be convenient, therefore, to deal with this case separately, but decide herein also the common questions of law involved. So far as the other matters are concerned, they are all instances of "explanation sales". They also involve the point of an infraction of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. These additional points will be dealt with in separate judgments, but it will not be necessary therein to decide once again the common points of law.

2. The facts in the present case are briefly as follows :

3. The petitioner in this case is the Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. This company and Messrs. Burn and Co. Ltd. are well-known companies, having their registered offices situate in Calcutta and having a common managing agent, namely, Messrs. Martin Burn Ltd. Both these companies manufacture railway rolling stock including wagons, and have been doing so for a long number of years. On or about July 2, 1951 the Railway Board placed an order with Messrs. Martin Burn Ltd. as managing agents of the two companies mentioned above, for 3500 Indian Railway Standard Broad Gauge 4-wheeled covered wagons "C. R." type, against its programme for the year 1952-53. A copy of this order is Ex. "A" to the petition. The following terms in the order are of importance :

"(4). Delivery F.O.R. Your work siding is required to be completed by 31-3-53.

(6) Accounting and payments : The F. A. and C. A. O., E. I. Rly. will maintain accounts and arrange all payments. It may, however, be noted that no payments against this order will be made before 1-4-1952.

(8) If and when sales tax becomes payable, such payment when made will not be on your account."

4. There was a request that the acceptance of the order might be communicated to the Railway Board, New Delhi, at an early date. This order placed by the Railway Board was accepted by Messrs. Martin Burn Ltd. by their letter dated July 28, 1951. This letter starts by thanking the Director, Railway Board, for the formal orders, inter alia, of 3,500 "C. R." type wagons, and intimates the acceptance of the terms and conditions. Certain special points have been made clear in the letter, but it is nobodys case that the terms were not agreed upon. In the letter it has been stated that the "C. R." type wagons have been allocated between Messrs. Burn and Co., Ltd. and Messrs. I. S. W. Co. Ltd., the former being entrusted with the manufacture of 1,700 wagons and the latter with 1,800 wagons. In the present case, we are concerned with 1,800 wagons which were allocated to the petitioner company. It is not disputed that the letter of acceptance was posted in Calcutta.

5. The next letter is from the General Manager, Western Railway to Messrs. Burn and Co. Ltd., dated July 25, 1952 giving particulars of the markings that are to be put on wagons intended for the Western Railway.

6. The next letter is by the Joint Director, Mechanical Engineering Railway Board and is addressed to Messrs. Martin Burn and Co. and several other manufacturers in Calcutta, in respect of rolling stock ordered against the 1952-53 programme of the Railway Board. In the original order it had been stated that the item numbers, which appear to be the particulars of allocation to different railways in In






































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