9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1962 (4) TMI 138 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Whether certain sales by a company are outside sales within the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2. Whether the sales are in the course of inter-state trade or commerce under Article 286(2). Analysis: 1. The case involves sales by a cement company, where the sales turnover includes sales to private consumers and government departments outside the state. The key question is whether the goods were actually delivered outside the state to qualify for exemption under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. The company contended that since the sales were F.O.R. the destination outside the state, and the goods eventually reached there, they should be exempt. However, it was held that actual delivery outside the state is crucial for the exemption, and the delivery to a common carrier within the state did not constitute delivery outside the state. 2. The company also argued that the sales were in the course of inter-state trade, invoking Article 286(2) of the Constitution. For a sale to be inter-state, there must be a transport of goods from one state to another under the contract of sale. The court analyzed the terms of the contract and the responsibilities of the parties. It was found that there was no contract for delivery at a place other than the factory site, and once the goods were consigned to railway wagons, the sale was complete within the state. Therefore, the transactions did not qualify as inter-state trade or commerce under Article 286(2). 3. The judgment emphasized that the liability of the seller ceased upon delivery to the carrier at the factory site, and any claims for loss or damage during transit were to be made against the carrier, not the seller. The terms of the contract and the course of dealings between the parties were crucial in determining the location of the sale and the applicability of constitutional provisions regarding sales tax. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Revision case, holding that the transactions did not meet the criteria for exemption or inter-state trade, and costs were awarded to the respondents.
|
