9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh against a common judgment in a sales tax revision filed by the appellants in the High Court. The facts are as follows: In the year 1952-53, for which the assessment of sales tax was in question, the appellants dealt in gunnies, and purchased them from two Mills in Vishakapatnam District and in respect of which they issued delivery orders to third parties, with whom they had entered into separate transactions. The procedure followed by the appellants was this: They first entered into contracts with the Mills agreeing to purchase gunnies at a certain rate for future delivery. Exhibit A-1 is a specimen of such contracts. The appellants also entered into agreements with the Mills, by which the Mills agreed to deliver the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been filed. The contentions of the appellants are that the agreement and the delivery of the kutcha delivery order did not amount to a sale of goods, but was only an assignment of a right to obtain delivery of the gunnies, which were not in existence at the time of the transaction with third parties, and were not appropriated to the contract, or, in the alter- native, that this was only an assignment of a forward contract. They seem to have relied in the High Court upon the decisions of this Court reported in Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit v. Messrs Budh Prakash Jai Prakash [1955] 1 S.C.R. 243; 5 S.T.C. 193 and Poppatlal Shah v. The State of Madras [1953] S.C.R. 677; 4 S.T.C. 188. to show that these transactions were not sales. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and the possessor of such a document has the right not only to receive the goods but also to transfer it to another by endorsement or delivery. At the moment of delivery by the Mills to the third parties, there were, in effect, two deliveries, one by the Mills to the appellants, represented, in so far as the Mills were concerned, by the appellants' agents, the third parties, and the other, by the appellants to the third parties as buyers from the appellants. These two deliveries might synchronise in point of time, but were separate, in point of fact and in the eye of law. If a dispute arose as to the goods delivered under the kutcha delivery order to the third parties against the Mills, action could lie at the instance of the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
