Back
Rajasthan High Court
Modi & Beri, JJ.
M/s Karam Chand Thappar & Bros. (Goal Sales) Ltd. Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
Sales Tax Officer, City Circle A Jaipur - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 45 of 1959
Decided On : April 20, 1965
The petitioner is a public limited company with its head office in Calcutta and carries on the business of the supply of coal throughout India. The petitioner has also supervised the supply of coal made to consumers by the collieries, and was registered as a dealer with the Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur. On the 2/09/1948, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Equitable Coal Company Ltd. which owns collieries in the State of Bengal, whereby it obtained a monopoly from the said Company for the the supply of coal in certain areas including Rajputana as it was then called. According to this agreement, the said Collieries could effect the sales of their products through the Agency of the petitioner and none else. On April 28, 1955, the petitioner entered into a contract with the Government of Rajasthan for the supply of coal to the power house at Jaipur. The petitioner supplied coal under this arrangement upto May, 1956. It is common ground between the parties that at the time of the supply of the coal by the petitioner, the Colliery Control Order, 1945, governed the supply of coal from the collieries. By this order, the order, the Government of India had imposed certain restrictions on the sale and purchase of coal and the price at which it could be sold and the procedure by which such sales and purchases had to be conducted. (paras)
According to the actual procedure which was adopted for the supply of coal by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer, Electrical and Mechanical Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur contacted the Deputy Coal Controller, Calcutta for a monthly ad hoc allotment for the supply of coal through the petitioner, and a copy of this requisition was marked to the petitioners office at Jaipur. On the basis of this demand, the petitioner through its head office at Calcutta submitted the programme to the Deputy Coal Commissioner (Distribution) Calcutta for the supply of coal from the collieries. Thereupon the Deputy Coal Commissioner ( Distribution ) issued the sanction against these programmes and he directly sent the copies of sanction to the railway allotment authorities for the allotment of wagons and also to the collieries for supplying the coal accordingly. On receipt of such sanction from the Deputy Coal Commissioner (Distribution) Calcutta, the collieries supplied coal directly to the Executive Engineer of the Power House concerned and the railway receipt was sent to the consignee through the petitioner so that he could take delivery of the coal from the railway. The bills for the sale price of the coal supplied to the State along with the copies of the railway receipts were sent from the colliers to the head office of the petitioner from where they were forwarded to the branch office for collection whereupon the latter collected the sale price from the State with respect to the coal supplied to it by the collieries. It was open to the Deputy Commissioner (Distribution) Calcutta under the Control Order to make such allotments of coal to the Rajasthan State as he thought proper and further at no stage it could be said that the State made any offer to the manufacturers or the suppliers or that there was any acceptance of the same by the suppliers. In other words, the essential element of volition which is the kernel of a contract of sale was lacking in this case. The conclusion seems to be inescapable on the facts and circumstances that there was no sale. (Paras 13 & 14)
"assuming that the supply of coal amounted to sale the Equitable Coal Company was not carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods within Rajasthan."
The operative part of judgment of the Supreme Court may be reproduced at this place:
"In the result, the appeal must succeed, but as the High Court did not deal with the question of the situs of sale or whether the sale was made in the course of inter-State trade, the case must be remitted, to the High Court. Although Mr. Tiwari has opposed the raising of the question at this stage whether the supply are inclined to allow this point to be raised because the question is one of law which can be decided on the material on the records of the case, in the light of the decision of this Court in M/s New India Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar (1964 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 459) which was decided after the judgment of the High Court in this case. We express no opinion whether the said decision covers the present case or not."
This is how the case has come before the present Bench.
2. In order to be able to decide the points now in controversy before us, the following facts may be stated.
3. The petitioner is a public limited company with its head office in Calcutta and carries on the business of the supply of coal throughout India. The petitioner has also a branch office in Jaipur which did retail business and also supervised the supply of coal made to consumers by the collieries, and was registered as a dealer with the Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur. On the 2nd September, 1948, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Equitable Coal Company Ltd. (hereafter called the Collieries) which owns collieries in the State of Bengal, whereby it obtained a monopoly from the said Company for the supply of coal in certain areas including Rajputna as it was then called. According to this agreement, the said Collieries could effect the sales of their products through the agency of the petitioner and none else. On April 28, 1955, the petitioner entered
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
