9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of Mangalore, to function as the purchasing agents for coffee for Messrs. Polsons Ltd. The authorisation by Polsons Ltd., enabling Messrs. Ullal Deva Rau and Sons to bid at the auction was accepted by the Indian Coffee Board. In pursuance of this, Messrs. Ullal Deva Rau and Sons, as commission agents bid at the coffee pool auction on behalf of Messrs. Polsons Ltd. They took delivery of the goods. It is not denied that the goods were subsequently sent by the commission agents to Messrs. Polsons Ltd., Bombay. The Tribunal was of the view that the sales had been effected in the course of inter-State trade, and that the assessee, the Indian Coffee Board, was entitled to the immunity from taxation guaranteed by Article 286(2) of the Const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not residents of Madras. But then the residence of the buyer is not a relevant factor, as the Supreme Court has pointed out in Vakkan's case(2). It is equally true that Deva Rau and Sons carried on business within the State of Madras as commission agents. That by itself does not conclude the (1) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 205 at p. 218. (2) [1956] 6 S.T.C. 647. question at issue. It was as the authorised agents of the buyer, Polsons, that the agents bid at the sale held by the respondent, the Indian Coffee Board. The bid was accepted and the sale was concluded by the delivery of the coffee that was sold to the agent, at the place of sale within the State of Madras. With the subsequent transport of the coffee outside the State, and the subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods to his principal do not alter the fact that as between the seller and the buyer the sale was completed by the deli- very of the goods sold at the seller's premises within the State of Madras. That made it an intra-State sale, a sale wholly concluded within the State of Madras. The liability to tax under the Act arose at that stage and fell upon the seller. That the goods were purchased avowedly for transport outside the State of Madras would not make it a sale in the course of inter-State commerce. In the despatch of the goods by the agent to his principal, there was no element of sale. In the sale to the agent by the seller there was no element of transport. Despite Deva Rau and Sons being a firm doing commission agency business, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the French merchant to the customers direct. The English agents were paid commissions. On these facts, the House of Lords held that the French wine merchant did not exercise a trade within the United Kingdom. Their Lordships pointed out a distinction between trade within a State and trade with another State. We fail to see how the principles laid down in that case can have any real appli- cation to the question we have got to consider in the present case. The learned counsel for the respondent also referred us to the observations of Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in Bengal Immunity Co., Ltd. v. The State of Bihar ( [1955] 6 S.T.C. 446), where the learned Judge considered the scope of section 39(1) of the Sale of Goods Act of 1930. We are not rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
