9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the meaning of the Central Act cannot be subject to tax. The shipment was movement of stocks of cement belonging to the State Trading Corporation from one place to another. There was shortage of supply of cement at Calcutta. The State Trading Corporation moved stocks from Madras to Calcutta. The area of need and the availability of stocks of cement were known to the State Trading Corporation. The transactions could not be subjected to Central sales tax. - Civil Appeal No. 231 of 1970 - - - Dated:- 14-3-1975 - RAY A.N., MATHEW K.K. AND KRISHNA IYER V.R. JJ. Girish Chandra and S.P. Nayar, Advocates, for respondent No. 3. S. Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General (A.V. Rangam, K. Venkataswami and Miss A. Subhashini, Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lcutta. The note mentioned the respondent Cement Distributors as suppliers. The note said that the authorisation was in favour of the Executive Engineer, Howrah Division Construction Board, 94, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. The quantity allotted was 230 metric tons. The name of the factory to supply cement was Dalmiapuram. Delivery was ex-Calcutta jetty docks. The price was the ruling price on the date of des- patch from the factory. On these documents it is contended on behalf of the State that cement was shipped by the respondent to their godown at Calcutta for direct sale to the purchaser in whose favour the letter of authorisation note was issued, namely, the Executive Engineer, Howrah Division Construction Board, who was to take d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the respondent to themselves at Calcutta according to the directions of the State Trading Corporation. This was for consumption in Calcutta area as will appear from the authorisation dated November 4, 1961. The other authorisation letter dated November 22, 1961, was issued, after the arrival of the goods, by the Regional Cement Officer, Calcutta, authorising the respondent to sell cement. It is apparent that there was no movement of goods by the respondent-company as a result of a contract of sale between the respondent and the buyer at Calcutta. The shipment was made by the respondent-company without any reference to any buyer. The movement of goods from Madras to Calcutta did not take place as a result of any contract of sale, but in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
