1963 (4) TMI 55 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Government of India is a "person" within the meaning of section 10 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.
2. Whether the purchase of sugar was in the course of business.
3. Whether the principle of estoppel is applicable to preclude the applicant from pleading the true state of affairs.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Whether the Government of India is a "person" within the meaning of section 10 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953:
The Tribunal initially framed the question as whether the Regional Director (Food), Bombay, is a person within the meaning of the Act. However, it was clarified that the contention raised was whether the Government of India is a person within the meaning of the Act. The court noted that the expression "person" is of wider amplitude and includes both natural and artificial persons. Article 300 of the Constitution provides that the Government of India is a legal person capable of suing and being sued, thus falling within the scope of the expression "person." The court distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the applicant's counsel, which dealt with the rule of construction that the Crown or State is not bound by a statute unless expressly stated. The court concluded that section 10 of the Act does not impose any tax liability on the Government of India but rather on the purchaser. Therefore, the Government of India is included in the term "person" under section 10 of the Act. The court answered this question in the affirmative.

2. Whether the purchase of sugar was in the course of business:
The applicant contended that he was merely an employee of M/s. Parasaram Parumal and that the purchases were made on behalf of his employer. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was the actual purchaser of the sugar, and after purchasing the goods, he handed them over to M/s. Parasaram Parumal without obtaining any consideration. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had frequently submitted tenders and purchased sugar, indicating a regular course of business. The court held that these activities constituted a course of business and that the purchases made by the applicant were indeed in the course of business. Therefore, the court answered this question in the affirmative.

3. Whether the principle of estoppel is applicable to preclude the applicant from pleading the true state of affairs:
The applicant argued that he was merely a dummy for M/s. Parasaram Parumal and that the purchases were made on behalf of his employer. The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct-submitting tenders, paying for the sugar, and taking delivery-estopped him from claiming that he was not the purchaser. The Tribunal also considered and rejected the applicant's contention that he was merely an agent of M/s. Parasaram Parumal. The court noted that answering this question would be academic, as the Tribunal had already dealt with the factual questions and recorded findings against the applicant. Therefore, the court did not provide an answer to this question.

Conclusion:
The court answered questions (1) and (2) in the affirmative, confirming that the Government of India is a "person" within the meaning of the Act and that the purchases were made in the course of business. The court did not answer the third question, as it was deemed academic. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. The reference was answered accordingly.

← Previous Next →