1955 (1) TMI 28 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Explanation 2 to Section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
2. Ultra vires nature of the Madras Legislature in enacting the statute with extra-territorial operation.
3. Repugnancy between the impugned provisions and the Indian Sale of Goods Act.
4. Validity of the imposition of sales tax on transactions with sufficient territorial nexus.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Explanation 2 to Section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act:
The explanation added to Section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act by Act XXV of 1947, effective from January 1, 1948, was challenged on grounds of constitutionality. The definition of "sale" under Section 2(h) was expanded to include transactions where the goods were either in the state at the time of the contract or produced in the state after the contract. The court upheld the constitutionality of this provision, noting that it did not confer extra-territorial jurisdiction but rather established a legitimate territorial nexus for taxation purposes.

2. Ultra Vires Nature of the Madras Legislature:
The contention that the Madras Legislature acted ultra vires by imposing tax on sales occurring outside the state was dismissed. The court referenced Section 100(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which empowered Provincial Legislatures to make laws for their provinces. The relevant entry in the Provincial Legislative List (Entry No. 48) allowed for the imposition of taxes on the sale of goods without restricting the Legislature to sales within provincial boundaries. The court cited precedents such as Wallace Brothers and Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, and Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, affirming that a sufficient territorial connection justified the tax.

3. Repugnancy Between the Impugned Provisions and the Indian Sale of Goods Act:
The argument that Explanation 2 was repugnant to the Indian Sale of Goods Act and thus void under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was rejected. The court clarified that the Madras General Sales Tax Act was enacted under Entry No. 48 of the Provincial List, while the Indian Sale of Goods Act fell under the Concurrent List. The court emphasized that the Sale of Goods Act did not prescribe the situs of sale, thus avoiding any conflict. The court referenced State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. and Louis Dreyfus and Co. v. The State of Madras to support this conclusion.

4. Validity of the Imposition of Sales Tax on Transactions with Sufficient Territorial Nexus:
The court examined whether there was a sufficient and real territorial nexus between the transactions and the taxing province. It was determined that the presence of goods within the state at the time of contract or their production in the state after the contract provided a legitimate basis for taxation. The court cited the Supreme Court's observations in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. and Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, which supported the validity of such a nexus for taxation purposes.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision cases, affirming the validity of Explanation 2 to Section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding ultra vires actions, repugnancy with the Indian Sale of Goods Act, or the lack of a sufficient territorial nexus. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the Government Pleader's fee was fixed at Rs. 125 in each case.