1988 (5) TMI 338 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the acquisition of coffee by the Board is compulsory acquisition or is it purchase or sale? Held that - Appeal dismissed. As we see the position and the scheme of the Act, in the instant case, there was contract as contemplated between the growers and the Coffee Board. The imposition of tax in a manner done by the sales tax authorities which has been upheld by the High Court is correct and the High Court was right.

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of coffee to the Coffee Board: Acquisition or Sale.
2. Element of sale involved in the transaction.
3. Role of the Coffee Board: Trustee or Agent.
4. Sale in the course of export.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Coffee to the Coffee Board: Acquisition or Sale

The primary issue was whether the mandatory delivery of coffee to the Coffee Board under the Coffee Act, 1942, constituted a compulsory acquisition or a sale. The appellant, the Coffee Board, contended that the compulsory delivery extinguished all marketing rights of the growers and was a compulsory acquisition, not a sale or purchase, to attract the levy of purchase tax. The High Court held that there was an element of consensuality in the compulsory sales governed by the Act, making it a sale for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act and thus exigible to sales or purchase tax under the relevant sales tax law. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the essential elements of a sale-competent parties, mutual consent, transfer of property, and payment of price-were present in the transaction.

2. Element of Sale Involved in the Transaction

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's observation that the transaction had an element of consensuality, even if minimal. The Court noted that the growers had a volition or option to enter into the coffee-growing trade, and once they did, they were bound by the regulations imposed for the benefit of the coffee industry. The payment made to the growers was considered the price of the coffee, not compensation or dividend, further indicating the presence of a sale. The Court also referenced the case of Vishnu Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which held that regulatory laws do not take away the contractual nature of a transaction, thus supporting the view that the transactions under the Coffee Act were sales.

3. Role of the Coffee Board: Trustee or Agent

The appellant argued that the Coffee Board acted as a trustee or agent for the growers, and thus the transactions should not be considered sales. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Coffee Board was not a trustee or agent but an instrumentality for implementing the Act. The Court emphasized that the Board's role was to administer the Act and not to act as an agent or trustee for the growers. The Madras High Court had also previously held that the Coffee Board was a dealer and not a constituted representative of the producer, and this view was accepted by the Supreme Court.

4. Sale in the Course of Export

The Court also addressed whether the sales made by the Coffee Board were in the course of export and thus exempt from sales tax. The High Court had held that the direct export sales made by the Coffee Board were not "in the course of export" and did not qualify for exemption under Article 286 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Coffee Board did not purchase or take delivery of specific coffee for direct export under prior contracts of sale. The purchases and exports made by the Board were for export only and not in the course of export, thus not qualifying for exemption.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the mandatory delivery of coffee to the Coffee Board constituted a sale and not a compulsory acquisition. The transactions were subject to sales or purchase tax, and the Coffee Board was not a trustee or agent for the growers. The sales made by the Coffee Board were not in the course of export and did not qualify for tax exemption. The appeals were dismissed, and the writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →