9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1962 (8) TMI 42 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxSales tax liability challenged - Held that - Appeal partly allowed. Sale in the present case there was transport of goods from outside the State of Mysore into the State of Mysore and the transactions themselves involved movement of goods across the border. Thus if the goods moved under the contract of sale, it cannot be said that they were intra-State sales. It was not the volition of the first appellant to supply to the purchaser the goods from any of the factories of the second appellant. In the result the imposition of the sales tax on the appellant for the year of assessment except for the period April 1, 1955 to September 6, 1955, was illegal and was not leviable for that period. The appeal is therefore allowed to that extent and the writ petition of the appellants succeeds but it will not affect the tax paid for the period above-mentioned.
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the transactions and whether they constituted inter-State or intra-State sales. 2. Applicability of Article 286(2) of the Constitution concerning inter-State trade or commerce. 3. Legality of the imposition of sales tax by the State of Mysore. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Transactions: The primary issue was whether the sales transactions conducted by the appellants were inter-State or intra-State sales. The appellants, Cement Marketing Co., Ltd., acted as sales managers for Associated Cement Co., Ltd., which manufactured cement in factories outside the State of Mysore. The modus operandi involved obtaining authorizations from government authorities, which specified the factory from which cement was to be supplied. The High Court of Mysore had earlier ruled that these transactions were intra-State sales, as the cement was delivered within Mysore. However, the Supreme Court found that the true nature of the transactions involved the movement of goods across state borders, thus constituting inter-State sales. The Court noted that the sales were a direct result of authorizations and contracts that necessitated the movement of goods from one state to another. 2. Applicability of Article 286(2) of the Constitution: The appellants contended that the sales fell within the purview of Article 286(2) of the Constitution, which exempts inter-State sales from state taxation unless otherwise provided by Parliament. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the movement of goods from factories outside Mysore to purchasers within Mysore was an integral part of the sales contract. The Court referenced previous judgments, such as Mohanlal Hargovind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co. Ltd., to assert that sales involving the movement of goods across state lines fell under inter-State trade or commerce. 3. Legality of the Imposition of Sales Tax by the State of Mysore: The Supreme Court held that the imposition of sales tax by the State of Mysore on these transactions was unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the transactions were inter-State sales and thus exempt from state taxation under Article 286(2). The Court also noted that the nature of the agreement between the appellants was that of principal and agent, not seller and buyer, further supporting the classification of the transactions as inter-State sales. The Court distinguished this case from Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. The State of Bihar by highlighting the differences in the agreements and the roles of the parties involved. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the imposition of sales tax on the appellants for the assessment year, except for the period from April 1, 1955, to September 6, 1955, was illegal. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the sales tax for the period in question was not leviable, and the writ petition of the appellants succeeded. The appellants were entitled to half the costs of the appeal due to their partial success. The judgment clarified the nature of inter-State sales and reinforced the constitutional protections against state taxation of such transactions.
|
