LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD. versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 20-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
391 
MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD. 
v. 
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL 
INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J .. K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, N. 
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SiKRI, JJ.] 
Sales Tax-Tea sold bu auction at Fort Cochin which was 
outside State of Travancore-Cochin-Whether to he included in 
turn-over for purposes of Sales-tax-"Outside Sale"-Meanina 
of-Doctrine of territorial nexus in Sales Ta.r legis!ation-
Point not urged in High Court or taken up in Statement of 
case-It can be taken up in Supreme Court-Constitution of 
India, Art. 286(i)(a} before and after the 
Constitution (Sixth 
Amendment) Act, 1956-Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax 
Act. 1950, s. (J). 
The appellant company owns several estates wherein tea is 
grown and it was assessed to sales-tax by the Sales Tax Officer 
in respect of the tea sold by 1t during the years 1954-55 and 
1955-56. An appeal filed by the appellant was rejected bv the 
Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the tea 
when sold was admittedly in godowns in the State of Travan-
core-Cochin and that consequently the sales must be deemed tc 
have taken place within tl:e State of Travancore-Cochin and 
hence liable to be included in the taxable turn-over. When a 
further appeal was taken to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 
it was held that the property in the goods sold passed at Fort 
Cochin in Madras State on the fall of the hammer at the auction 
and hence the same was not taxable. The State filed a revision 
petition to the High Court. While the High Court accepted the 
finding of the Tribunal that the property in the goods sold pas-
sed at Fort. Cochin on the fall of the hammer at the auction. it 
differed from the Tribunal as regards the effect of the circm!'-
stance that the tea sold was. at the point of sale, physically in 
godowns situated in the State of Travancore-Cochin · and held 
the sales to be taxable. The appellant cam<> to this Court after 
obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court. 
The onlv question argued before this court was whetter a 
sale of tea effected by the appellant by auction at Fort Cochin 
in Madras State wa• a sale outside the State of Travancore-
Cochin or inside it and whether the same was taxable or not. • 
Accepting the appeal. 
HELD: No sales tax was to be levied in this case as the sales 
took place outside the State of Travancore-Cochin. The test for 
determining whP.ther a sale is inside or outside a State is \\·here 
the property in the goods passed and in the present case the 
property in the goods passed in Fort Cochin in Madras State on 
the fall of the hammer at the auction. 
The point about the property not having passed in the 
Madras State was not argued before the High Court and was 
also not urged in the statement of case filed by respondent and 
hence the same was not allowed to be argued in the Supreme 
Court. 
Per Shah. J. The property in the goods passed at Fort 
Cochin in Madras State and as the goods were delivered not for 
the purpose of consumption in any particular State, the sales 
were 
not inside Travancore-Cochin but were outside the 
1964 
March 20 
I 
1964 
Malayalam Planfa. 
tions Ltd. 
v. 
TheDepuly 
Commisaioner of 
Agricultural 
Incomt·tax and 
Salea Taz 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
State and were as held by this Court in A. V. Thomas & Co. v. 
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax 
Trivandrum, 14 S.T.C. 363, not liable to be taxed under the 
Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1950. 
The doctrine of territorial nexus had full play in sales tax 
legislation under the Government of India, Act, 1935 and was 
not abrogated by the enactment of Art, 286 of the Constitution. 
It continued to be in operation in the interregnum between the 
promulgation of the Constitution and the amendment of Art. 
286 by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act. 1956. It also 
applies now subject to certain modifications. 
Par Jiament has 
been given the power to formulate principles for determining 
when a sale or purcl:ase of goods takes place outside the State 
or in the course of the import of the goods into or export of the 
goods out of the territory of India. Exercising the power und.er 
cl. (2) Parliament has enacted the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 
and by s. 4(2) the doctrine of territorial nexus has been given 
legislative recognition th<mgh in somewhat limited form. 
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.