1970 (3) TMI 148 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the supply of rice by rice millers to retail dealers at controlled prices is a "sale" exigible to sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Whether retail dealers (non-millers) are liable to pay sales tax on the sales of rice to customers and ration cardholders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Supply of Rice by Rice Millers to Retail Dealers
The core question was whether the transactions between rice millers and retail dealers, conducted under the requisition orders of the Civil Supplies Department, constitute "sales" under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The court examined the legal definition of "sale" under Section 2(n) of the Act, which aligns with the definition in Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act. For a transaction to be considered a sale, it must involve a bargain or agreement of sale, payment or promise of payment, delivery of goods, and transfer of property from seller to buyer.

The court noted that while the transactions were regulated by control orders, the millers and retail dealers retained some volition regarding the mode of payment and delivery of goods. Despite the statutory compulsion, these elements allowed the transactions to be considered as "sales" since the agreement was valid, lawful, and involved a transfer of title. The court cited precedents like I.S. & W. Products v. State of Madras and Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. State of A.P., which supported the view that transactions under statutory compulsion can still be valid sales if mutual assent is not completely excluded.

The court concluded that the transactions between millers and retail dealers were indeed "sales" exigible to sales tax, as the parties had some choice in the agreement's execution. Additionally, the millers had collected sales tax from the retail dealers, reinforcing the nature of these transactions as sales.

Issue 2: Liability of Retail Dealers for Sales Tax
Given the conclusion on the first issue, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether retail dealers were liable for sales tax on their sales to customers or ration cardholders. Since the transactions between millers and retail dealers were deemed first sales within the state and thus taxable, the retail dealers' subsequent sales would not be the first sales and hence not liable to sales tax under the Act.

Additional Points:
- The court dismissed the contention that the Revenue Board erred in not remitting the matter to the assessing authority, noting that the appellants had not utilized the opportunity to present evidence before the Board.
- The court also dismissed the argument that the Deputy Commissioner could not revise an order already decided by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, allowing the assessee to raise this point before the concerned authority.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions filed by the rice millers were dismissed, confirming their liability to pay sales tax on the first sales of rice. The writ petitions filed by the retail dealers were allowed, exempting them from paying sales tax on their sales to customers or ration cardholders. Special Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 and T.R.C. No. 27 of 1969 were also dismissed.