1965 (10) TMI 40 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the appellant-company is liable to pay sales tax assessed under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, on the price of coal supplied to allottees outside the taxing State pursuant to directions of the Coal Commissioner issued under the Colliery Control Order, 1945? Held that - The appeals are allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. It is declared that the turnover of the Company amounting to Rs. 1,75,67,286-1-2 for the year 1954-55, Rs. 1,17,39,636-11-8 for the year 1955-56 and Rs. 1,55,18,957-6-5 for the year 1956-57 was exempt from liability to sales tax under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950.

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay sales tax on coal supplied outside the taxing State.
2. Applicability of Article 286 of the Constitution.
3. Reopening of assessments by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
4. Interpretation of "sale" under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950.
5. Classification of transactions as inter-State trade or commerce.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Sales Tax on Coal Supplied Outside the Taxing State:
The primary question was whether the appellant-company was liable to pay sales tax under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, on coal supplied to allottees outside the taxing State as per the Coal Commissioner's directions. The Company mined coal in Hyderabad and supplied it both within and outside the State. The Commercial Tax Officer initially exempted the Company for 1954-55 and 1955-56 but rejected the exemption for 1956-57. The Company's appeal to higher authorities and the High Court was unsuccessful.

2. Applicability of Article 286 of the Constitution:
The Company argued that the turnover was exempt from sales tax under Article 286 of the Constitution, which prohibits States from taxing sales that occur outside their boundaries or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The Company contended that the sales were either outside the State or inter-State transactions. The High Court disagreed, but the Supreme Court found that the transactions were indeed exempt under Article 286, as they involved actual delivery of coal outside the State for consumption.

3. Reopening of Assessments by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes:
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued notices to reopen the assessments for 1954-55 and 1955-56, which were previously exempted. The Company argued that this action was barred by limitation and thus incompetent. The High Court rejected this contention. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to decide on this issue given its ruling on the applicability of Article 286.

4. Interpretation of "Sale" under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950:
The term "sale" was defined in the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, to include transfers of property in goods. The Company initially argued that the transactions were not "sales" as per the Act because they were directed by the Coal Commissioner. However, this argument was not raised earlier, and the Supreme Court proceeded on the assumption that these were sales under the general law of sale of goods.

5. Classification of Transactions as Inter-State Trade or Commerce:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the transactions were inter-State sales. The Court noted that for a sale to be in the course of inter-State trade, it must involve the movement of goods from one State to another under the contract of sale. The Court concluded that the coal was transported from Hyderabad to other States as a result of the contract of sale, making these inter-State transactions. Consequently, these transactions were not taxable by the State under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order. It declared that the turnover of the Company for the years 1954-55, 1955-56, and 1956-57 was exempt from sales tax under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950. The Company was entitled to its costs in the appeals in both the Supreme Court and the High Court. The transactions were classified as inter-State sales and thus not subject to State sales tax.

← Previous Next →