9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and commerce and should therefore be excluded from the taxable turnover of sales?" The period of assessment ranges between 31st October, 1951 and 18th October, 1952. At the material time, article 286(1)(a) with explanation as it stood before the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956, was the law governing the subject of inter-State sale. 2.. Article 286 read as under: "(1) No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place- (a) outside the State; or (b) in the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India. Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-clause (a), a sale or purchase shall be deemed to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the respondent-dealer, M/s. Raisaheb Rekchand Mohta Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited, Hinganghat. The permit mentions the details about the area to which the cloth is allotted together with the name of the allottee, "A" class licensees and the name of the nominees, "D" class licensees. Item No. 8 in the specimen permit reads thus: "Orissa Government. 1. Umashankar & Co., Itwari, Nagpur". "D" class licensees as per terms of the licence took delivery of the goods under that permit from the respondent-dealer, paid its price and despatched the goods to the "A" class licensees in Orissa through railway. The Sales Tax Officer as well as the Assistant Commissioner held that these were intra-State sales subject to assessment under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould effect the sales or divert the cloth to any other place contrary to the permit. 5.. To the knowledge of the dealer, "D" class licensees were not and could not legally be the purchasers of the commodity. They were merely handling agents appointed by the Commissioner solely with a view to facilitate compliance with the permit for which they were given remuneration. The "D" class licensees were thus not the agents of "A" class licensees. They were agents of the Commissioner. 6.. In fairness to the department, it will have to be stated that the above factual position has never been in dispute. One gets that from the following statement made by the Tribunal in the revisional order as well as the order under reference: "Before us, the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... railway wagons at the risk of the allottee making out a "sale note" mentioning the cost per ton f.o.r. colliery with freight to pay by the allottees. Thus, the property in the goods had passed in the allottees in the State as soon as the railway receipt was prepared. In this background, the Andhra Pradesh High Court came to the conclusion that it was intra-State sale but the Supreme Court reversed that conclusion. 9.. These two cases were sought to be distinguished on behalf of the Commissioner on the ground that in the transactions in question, the despatch of the goods outside the State was not made by the dealer but was made by the nominee of the Commissioner. We are unable to see how this distinguishing feature affects the point involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
