LexM/S. ANWARKHAN MAHBOOB CO. versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY (NOW MAHARASHTRA) AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
709
" The Crown cannot deprive a legislature of its
r960
legislative authority by the mere fact that in the
n k
exercise of its prerogative it makes a grant of land Manmo~a:' Deo
within tho territory over which such legislative autho-
v:
rity exists and no court can annul the enactment of a
State of Bihar
legislative 'Body acting within the legitimate scope of
its sovereign competence. If, therefore, it be found s. g, Das f.
that the subject of a Crown grant is within the com-
petence of a provincial legislature, nothing can prevent
that legislature from legislating about it, unless the
Constitution Act itself expressly prohibits legislation
on the subject either absolutely or conditionally."
For the reasons given above, we hold that none of the
three points urged on behalf of the appellants has any
substance. The appeals fail and are dismissed with
costs ; there will be only one hearing fee.
Appeals dismissed.
M/s. ANW ARKHAN MAHBOOB CO.
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
(NOW MAHARASHTRA) AND OTHERS
(S. K. DAS, M: HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA, J. c ..
SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)
Purchase Tax-If leviable on goods not specifically mentioned as
taxable but come under the general description "all goods other than
those specified "-Conversion of one commodity into another com-
mercially different article-If amounts to consumption-Place of
purchase for the purpose of taxation-Constitution of India, Art. z9
({) & (g), 286-Bombay Sales Tax Act, z953 (Bom. Act III of
z953), s. IO, Schedule B, Entry 80.
The petitioner Company carrying on the business of manu-
facturing bidis and having its head office at Jabalpur in the
State of Madhya Pradesh made certain purchases of tobacco in
the State of Bombay. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the peti-
tioner to a purchase tax under the provisions of the Bombay
Sales Tax Act, 1953. The petitioner contested the assessment of
September ao.
ftlfs. Anwarkha11
Mahboob Co
v.
The State of
Bombay (1Vow
Alahara.~htra)
0-- Othe1·s
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
purchase tax on the grounds that those tran>actions and pur-
chases were" Outside the State of Bombay" within the meaning
of Art. 286(1)(a) of the Constitution read with the Explanation,
that the provisions of the Bombay Sales TaJ< Act, 1953, did not
authorise the imposition, levy or collection of any purchase tax
on the transactions in question and that the transactions took
place in the course of inter State trade and couimerce. The
petitioner's appeal to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax was
dismissed and then the present petition for writs of mandamus
and artiorari was filed in the Supreme Court. The petitioner1
contended that the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, did not autho-
rise the imposition of a tax on the purchase of bidi-tobacco
which was not one of the goods specified in column 4 of Schedule
B of the said Act.
The petitioner further wntended that the
purchased tobacco was delivered to it within the State of
Bombay as a direct result of the purchase but it was intended to
be sent to the State of ~fadhya Pradesh to be manufactured into
bidis at that place. The only thing which was done in the
Bombay State was to remove the stem and dust from the
tobacco which process did neither amount to "consumption " of
tobacco as contemplated under the Explanation to Art. 286 of
the Constitution nor did it convert the tobacco which was sent to
the Head Office into an article" commercially different" from
the tobacco purchased from the cultivators. Jn their counter-
affidavit the respondents averred that the raw tobacco was con-
verted into bidi pattis before it was sent outside Bombay State
both of which were commercially different articles and the
market value of which was also different. These averments
were not controverted by the petitioner.
Held, that the words" all goods other than those; specified
from time to time in Schedule A and in the preceding entries" in
entry Bo of Schedule B of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953,
amounted to a specification of goods for the purposes of s. 10 of
the Act and as bidi tobacco purchased by the petitioner was not
within Schedule A or any of the earlier entries in Schedule B
purchase tax at the rate mentioned against entry So was leviable
under s. "lo of the Act.
Whenever a commodity was so dealt with as to change it
into another commercial commodity there was consumption of
the first commodExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.