1964 (10) TMI 56 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the present sales are outside sales? Held that - Appeal allowed. Carefully considering all the rules under which sales in question have been held by public auction, and we are satisfied that title to the goods passed to the buyer under section 64(2) of the Act as soon as the sale was completed by the auctioneer announcing its completion by the fall of the hammer. The initial auction cannot, be treated as an executory contract which became a conditional contract on the fall of the hammer. The auction was an auction sale in respect of ascertained goods and it was concluded in every case on the fall of the hammer. On that view of the matter, we must hold that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the Sales Tax Authorities were justified in imposing sales tax against the appellants in regard to the transactions which have given rise to the present appeals.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of plantation companies to pay sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act.
2. Determination of the location where the property in goods (tea) passes to the buyer.
3. Applicability of the previous Kerala High Court decision and its reversal by the Supreme Court.
4. Interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Sale of Goods Act regarding sales by auction and sales by sample.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Plantation Companies to Pay Sales Tax:
The appellants, plantation companies growing and selling their own tea, were assessed to sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act XI of 1125. They contended that the transactions were not liable to sales tax, but their pleas were rejected by the Sales Tax Officers, and the assessments were confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court of Kerala. The appellants challenged these decisions before the Supreme Court by special leave.

2. Determination of the Location Where the Property in Goods Passes to the Buyer:
The central issue was whether the sales of tea by public auction at Fort Cochin (State of Madras) were "outside sales" for the State of Travancore-Cochin. The procedure followed in the auctions was that the tea produced in the estates was stored at godowns in Wellingdon Island (Travancore), and the auctions were held at Fort Cochin. The buyers paid at Fort Cochin and obtained delivery notes for the goods at Wellingdon Island. The Supreme Court had to determine if the property in the goods passed at the fall of the hammer at Fort Cochin or upon inspection and acceptance at Wellingdon Island.

3. Applicability of the Previous Kerala High Court Decision and Its Reversal by the Supreme Court:
The Kerala High Court had previously held that the property in the goods passed at Fort Cochin, making the transactions taxable by the State of Travancore-Cochin. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Trivandrum, which held that the property in the goods passed at Fort Cochin, making it an "outside sale" for Travancore-Cochin. The Supreme Court reiterated this position in Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, South Zone, Quilon. Thus, the Kerala High Court's decision was no longer good law.

4. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions of the Indian Sale of Goods Act:
The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, particularly sections 17 (sale by sample), 18 (sale of unascertained goods), and 64 (auction sales). The Court considered the rules of the Tea Trade Association of Cochin, which prescribed the auction procedures. The Court concluded that the sales were of ascertained goods, and the property in the goods passed at the fall of the hammer at Fort Cochin. The Court rejected the argument that the sales were conditional upon inspection and acceptance at Wellingdon Island.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the sales of tea by public auction at Fort Cochin were "outside sales" for the State of Travancore-Cochin and could not be subjected to sales tax by that State. The orders of the High Court in revision were set aside, and the levy of sales tax by the Sales Tax Authorities was declared invalid. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.