9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (6) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Madras High Court in Louis Dreyfus Co. Ltd., Madras v. The State of Madras[1954] 5 S.T.C. 307; (1954) 2 M.L.J. 326. The correctness of these decisions, it is said, is being questioned before the Supreme Court. But the view taken in these decision has not been attacked before us. Mr. Ramamurthy has questioned the legality of the levy in regard to two periods alone-the first period ending with 1st January, 1948, on which date the amended section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (amended by the insertion of a new Explanation by Madras Act XXV of 1947) came into effect and the period starting from 26th January, 1950, and ending with 31st March, 1950. Before we discuss the merits of the appellant's contentions, we must dispose of an objection which was raised on behalf of the Government in the Court below although it has not been seriously repeated before us. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by time under section 18 of the Act because it was filed beyond the period of six months limited thereby. Its view is inconsistent with the decision of a Divisional Bench of this High Court in Santhanna v. State(1957) 2 An. W.R. 260; 9 S.T.C. 80., where it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a phone call, the same procedure is adopted except that there is nobody on behalf of the customer to examine the goods or to see that they are properly weighed and packed. It is true it was held in Poppatlal Shah v. The State of Madras [1952] 3 S.T.C. 396; 65 L.W. 1024. that considerations arising under the Sales Tax Act are altogether different from those arising under the Sale of Goods Act and that the point of time when property in the goods actually passed was immaterial from the point of view of the levy of tax provided there is a completed sale; that the word "sale" had both a legal and a popular sense, and that the Sales Tax Act was not concerned with the legal sense as defined by the Sale of Goods Act. That view has however been upset by the Supreme Court in Poppatlal Shah v. The State of Madras[1953] 4 S.T.C. 188; 1953 S.C.R. 677.The result is that we must considered the question when, in transactions following the course above described, title to the property in the goods passes to the buyer, a question which can only be decided in the light of the relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Now sections 19 to 24 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act relate to transfer of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any time before he paid the money mentioned in the invoice. The only circumstance upon which reliance is placed on behalf of the State in support of their contention that the property in the goods passed within the Madras State is that the seller in his accounts debited the buyer with the amount due under the hundi. We think that this circumstance has no real bearing upon the question as to the intention of the parties in regard to the passing of title to the goods. Indeed, a similar view has been taken by a Divisional Bench of this High Court in State of Madras v. Venkataramaniah Sons (1957) 2 An. W.R. 378; 9 S.T.C. 54., wherein the learned Judges observed as follows: "Unless the contrary intention could be inferred from other circumstances or the conduct of the parties, the consignment of the goods to the seller is a pointer to the conclusion that he intended to remain the owner thereof till he realised the balance of the purchase money. The fact that the seller debited the buyer with the balance or that the goods were taken out of the stock register does not establish a contrary intention. These debits seem to have been made in accordance with trade usage." We must therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of inter-State trade or commerce, the removal of one ban does not operate to remove the other restriction upon the taxing power of a State. It is however argued on behalf of the Government, placing reliance upon a decision of the Patna High Court reported in Indian Steel and Wire Products Limited v. Superintendent of Commercial Taxes[1957] 7 S.T.C. 776; A.I.R. 1957 Pat. 112. that the plaintiff cannot succeed unless he proves that the goods were actually delivered as a direct result of such sale for the purpose of consumption in the other State within the meaning of the Explanation contained in clause (1) of Article 286 of the Constitution. The argument so far as we can make it out is this: "The Explanation provides by means of a legal fiction that the State in which the goods sold or purchased are actually delivered for consumption is to be considered the State in which the sale or purchase took place, although the property in the goods passed elsewhere. The State in which such delivery is made, otherwise called the delivery State, is the only State which can impose taxation. The sale or purchase shall be deemed to have taken place inside that State and outside all other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
