STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus KOLLA SREERAMA MURTHY

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 02-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1181 
Stai. f 
A.tu/''" PraJ1•h 
•• 
BuvVti'u 8aloromi 
lied'' 
-
U'ane"'1o J. 
184 
SUPREME COURT RE.PORTS [1963] 
him to grant a mining lease to any 
one. 
It follows therefor" that the 
mining leases 
granted in this case were granted by persons who 
he.d no right to the minerals and therefore confer 
no rights on the respondents to claim as of right 
from the Government that they should be granted 
a mining lease under the l:tulea. 
In view of the above decision appeal No. l!52 
must be allowed and appeal No. 25a must fail. 
We th11refore allow appeal No. 252 and setting 
aside the order of the appeal court dismiss the writ 
petition with costs to the State throughout. Appeal 
No. 253 is hereby dismissed but in the circumsta-
nces parties will bear their own costs. 
0. A. No. 252 of 1958 alkJwed. 
0. A. No. 253 of 1958 dismissed. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
KOLLA SREERAMA MURTHY 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDR,AGADKAR, K. N. 
WANCnoo, N. RAJA.GOP.ALA AYYANGAR and 
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYA.R, JJ.) 
Sales Tax-Delivery order-Endoraement--Properly in 
good& paaaea on taking delivery by tho laat endoraet-E//ect-
Original holder of delivery order, if liable to pay salea taz-
Madras General Sales taz Act, 1939 (Mad. IX of 1939). s. J. 
The respondent was a dealer.in gunny hags. He pur-
chased gunnies from the ¥ills on terms of a wri1ten contract 
which was on a printed form. The Mills after receiving a 
part of purchase price, issued "delivery orders" directing the 
delivery of goods as per the contract. Instead of taking deli-. 
very himself the respondent endorsed the delivery orders and 
these passed through several hands before the ultimate hol· 
der of the delivery order presented it to the Mills and obtaiJ'.!e<! 
delivery of the gunnies from them. 
• 
l 
 
 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
185 
At the date of the contract for purchase, the goods 
which wne the subject matter of the purchase were not appro-
priated to the contract so that there was no ccmpleted sale 
since no property passed but only an agreement of sale. 
The Sales Tax Officer assessed the 
respondent and 
collected sales tax on the said transactions. The question was 
whether the transactions were or were not "Sales of goods" 
within s. 3 the Madras Sales Tax Act, 1939, so as to enable 
the turnover represented by these sales to be brought to tax 
under the Act, or were mere sales or transfers of delivery 
orders: and further what was the effect of the property in the 
goods passing to the ultimate endorsee of the delivery order. 
Held, that the principle laid down in Butterworth v. 
Kingway Motors Ltd., which is the basis of the decision in the 
case of Bayyana Bhimayya v. State of Andlua Prariesh, would 
equally apply to the facts of the present case . 
Bayyana Bhimayya v. Government of Andlira Praaesh, 
(1961) 3 S. C.R. 267 and Butteiworth v. Kingway Motors Ltil. 
( 1954) 2 All E. R. 694, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 368 and 369 of 1961. 
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated 
June 27, 1957, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 
in S. A. Nos. 194 and 195 of 1954. 
K. N. Rajgopal Sastri and P .. D. Menon, for the 
appellants. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. Satyanarayana, 
for the respondents. 
1962. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
AYYANGAR, J.-These two appeals are before 
us by virtue of certificates of fitness granted by the 
. High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 13 "} (I) ( c) 
of the Constitution. The State of Andhra Pradesh 
is the appellant in both the appeaJs and one Kolla 
Sreerama Murthy-a dealer in gunnies-is the res-
pondent in each of them and the point involved 
relates to the liability of the respondent to Sales 
1962 
SMeof 
Andhra Pradesh 
• 
v. 
Koll a Sreerama 
Murthy 
Ayyangar J, 
1951 
Stal1 of 
And~ra Prad1sh 
•• 
Xolla Sf'urama 
MurtJi1 
AyyangarJ. 
• 
186 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963] 
Tax in respect of the transactions to which we shall 
later refer. 
Civil Appeal No. 368 of 1961 arises out of 
original suit No. 268 of 1951 in the file of the 
Distrint Munsif's Court, Rajahmundry by the res-
pondent for setting aside an assessment and obtain 
refund of a sum of Hs. 2,941/7 /- which was partly 
the sum assessed and collected as sales-tax for the 
assessment year 1947-48, while Civil Appeal No. 369 
of 1961 is from a similar suit praying for dentical 
reliefs in respect of the year 1946-47, the amount of 
which refund was sought however being Rs.1,631/12/-. 
Th

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