9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must be answered in favour of the appellant and against the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh. - Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 1968 - - - Dated:- 11-2-1969 - SHAH J.C., RAMASWAMI V. AND GROVER A.N. JJ. G.L. Sanghi and Janendra Lal and B.R. Agarwala, Advocates of Gagrat and Co., for the appellant. I.N. Shroff, Advocate, for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMASWAMI, J. -The appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business of mining manganese ore and selling the same to various buyers in India. For the calendar year 1st January, 1958, to 31st December, 1958, the appellant was assessed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nganese ore by the non-applicant were in the course of inter-State trade and therefore exempt from tax under the old Act or were intrastate sales in this State and therefore liable to tax under the old Act." By its judgment dated 6th December, 1967, the High Court answered the question against the appellant holding that the sales in question were intrastate sales and liable to be taxed under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The sales of manganese ore were effected during the period 1st January, 1958, to 31st December, 1958. Before the commencement of this period article 286 of the Constitution was amended on 11th September, 1956, by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956. By the amendment, the explanation to the first claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another." The interpretation of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act was the subject-matter of consideration by this court in Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.R. Sarkar [1960] 11 S.T.C. 655., and Shah, J., speaking for the majority of the Bench, observed as follows: "In our view, therefore, within clause (b) of section 3 are included sales in which property in the goods passes during the movement of the goods from one State to another by transfer of documents of title thereto; clause (a) of section 3 covers sales, other than those included in clause (b), in which the movement of goods from one State to another is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1960] 11 S.T.C. 655., it did not matter whether the property passed in one State or another. The same principle was reiterated by this court in K.G. Khosla Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division [1966] 17 S.T.C. 473.. In the present case, the entire turnover of the appellant consisted of sale of manganese ore to eight firms outside the State, some of Bombay and some of Nagpur. There was a written contract of sale between the appellant and each of these firms, on more or less identical terms, the only material difference being that under two of the contracts the rate was fixed f.o.r. Bombay and under the rest f.o.r. Katanjhari, which is in the State of Madhya Pradesh. There is no dispute that the ore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and were not liable to be taxed under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. In our opinion, the present case falls within the ratio of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Allwyn Cooper Civil Appeal No. 1208 of 1966 decided on 21-8-1968; since reported at [1970] 25 S.T.C. 26., in which the relevant clauses of the contract of sale were almost identical with the terms of the contract of sale in the present case. The High Court has followed its previous decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Nathani Brothers [1968] 21 S.T.C. 465. But, for the reasons already given, we consider that the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Nathani Brothers [1968] 21 S.T.C. 465., was not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
