9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whether when bags of rice are sold the gunny bags concerned attract sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The Tribunal has held that the tax is attracted and it is the correctness of that decision that is challenged before us. 3.. It is not disputed that the rice itself does not attract any tax under the Act. Section 5(vi) of the Act specifically provides that the sale of foodgrains shall be exempt from taxation. 4.. The petitioners had not charged separately for the gunny bags when the bags of rice were sold. There is nothing, however, to indicate that the bags were given free, and that their value did not form part of the price paid by the purchasers. 5.. The Tribunal has taken the view that the price per bag of rice ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for deferred payment or other valuable consideration will come within the definition of the expression "sale" as given in section 2(j) of the Act. There is definitely a transfer of property in these cases in both rice and gunny bags and that in the course of the petitioners' trade or business and for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. 11.. In other words, all the elements necessary to subject the petitioners' turnover in respect of gunny bags to sales tax appear to be present. The turnover cannot be gathered separately from the accounts of the petitioners and has been estimated at Rs. 74,908-2-0 in T.R.C. No. 7 of 1958 and at Rs. 49,136-8-0 in T.R.C. No. 19 of 1958. The correctness of the estimate is not in di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners also drew our attention to two works contract cases under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley Co. (Madras) Ltd.[1958] 9 S.T.C. 353; A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 560., Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Madras[1958] 9 S.T.C. 687; A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 33. and to Robinson v. Graves[1935] 1 K.B. 579. The last-mentioned case related to a contract to paint a portrait. All that was held was that such a contract was not a contract for the sale of goods but a contract for work and labour. 15.. The contention apparently is that the rice and the bags form an integrated commodity and the exemption under section 5(vi) of the Act should hence apply not merely to the rice but to the bags as well. The exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
