9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow under consideration. The finding recorded by the authorities is that the delivery of the cement was not the direct result of such sale or purchase of the cement outside the State. In the absence of such privity the explanation is not attracted to the transactions. - C.A. Nos. 768 of 1977, 539, & 1038 of 1978, - - - Dated:- 9-4-1991 - RANGANATH MISRA, KANIA M.H. AND KULDIP SINGH JJ. S.V. Deshpande and S.K. Agnihotri, Advocates, for the respondents. V.A. Bobde, Senior Advocate (B.R. Aggarwala and U.A. Rana Advocate, with him), for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, C.J.I.- These are appeals by special leave and are dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions were not exigible to sales tax in Madhya Pradesh. This stand was negatived by the assessing officer, the first appellate authority and the Board of Revenue. The Board, in the statement of the case drawn up by it, held that cement became a controlled commodity from 8th of August, 1942, and notwithstanding the expiry of the Defence of India Rules with effect from 30th of September, 1946, distribution of cement continued to be controlled even during the period. The Marketing Company had its establishment at Nagpur then within Madhya Pradesh which received the orders of authorisations and managed the supply from the factory at Kymore. The Board in its statement further stated: "The entire question in dispute hinges round the fact as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturing companies but for itself and the manufacturing companies had no control over the sales nor had they any concern with the persons to whom cement was sold. In fine, the goods were supplied to the order of the Marketing Company, which had the right, under the terms of the agreement, to sell on such terms as it thought fit and that the manufacturing companies had the right to receive only the price fixed by the Marketing Company. The relationship in such cases can be regarded only as that of a seller and buyer and not of principal and agent." This Court in Rohtas Industries case [1961] 12 STC 615, on a detailed analysis of the terms of the contract came to hold that there was a sale between the manufacturer and the Marketing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods the property in the goods has by reason of such sale or purchase passed in another State." Rohtas Industries case [1961] 12 STC 615 (SC), was dealing with a period prior to the Constitution; therefore, without the explanation. The question for consideration thus is: does the presence of the explanation make any difference. What has been found as a fact in the statement of the case is that there was preceding local sales complete in every respect within Madhya Pradesh by which title to the cement had passed from the appellant to the Marketing Company. The concept of inter-State sale as brought in by the Sixth Amendment or in the subsequent statute known as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was not in existence for the relevant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
