LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus M/S. KARAM CHAND THAPPAR & BROS. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
•
A
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
v.
M/S. KARAM CHAND THAPPAR & BROS. LTD.
August 27, 1968
B
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
D
Sales Tax-Sale-Ingredients of-Supply of coal at price fixed by
Colliery Control Order-If constitutes sale.
Soles Tax Laws Validation Act (7 of 1956)-Composite order dealing
with assessment year
1955-56-If could be split uo and validated upto
Seotember 6. 1955.
The respondent-assessee, had its head office at Calcutta and a branch
office at Jaipur and was registered as a 'dealer' under the Rajasthan Sales
Tax Act, 1954.
Under a contract with the Equitable Coal Ccmpany, the
assessee acquired monopoly rights to supply coal in Rajasthan and sold
coal as the agent of the Equitable Coal Company. Under an agreement
dated April 28, 1955 the assessee supplied coal to the State of Rajasthan.
The Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur, included in the turnover df the assessee in
the year 1955-56, the sales of coal to the State of Rajasthan.
In a writ petition filed by the assessee, the High Court held : '( 1) that
the supply of coal to the State of Rajasthan did not constitute sale as
the supply was controlled by a statutory order, namely the Colliery Con-
trol Order, 1945; and (2) that even if there was a sale it would be inter-
state sale, and even though the
assessee
was liable to pay sales tax in
respect of inter-State sale between April 1, 1955 and September 6, 1955
E
because of Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 the order of assessment
in the instant case was not valid, as it was a composite
order
for
the
entire assessment year 1955-56.
F
G
H
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : (1) Under the Colliery Control Order, coal may be supplied
to a purchaser under a contract and the effect of the Control Order, was
only to super-impose upon the agreement between the parties the rate 1
fixed the Con~rol Order. Therefore in the present case, the four elements
necessary to render turnover from sale of goods liable to sales tax namely
(a) competency of parties, (b) mutual assent of the parties, (c) passing
of property in the goods supplied to the purchaser, and (d) payment or
promise of payment df price were present and the transaction would be
a sale of goods within the meaning of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. [864
F-H; 865 A, 866 G]
State of Madras v. Gannon
Dunkerley
&
Co.
(Madras)
Ltd.,
[1959] S.C.R. 379, Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. State of Madras,
21 S.T.C. 138 (S.C.) and Andhra SugC'rs Ltd, v. State of Andhra Pradesh
21 S.T.C. 212 (S.C.), followed.
New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Bihar,
[1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 459 on. which reliance was placed by the High
Court. has no application to the present case, because, the
condition
requiring mutual assent of the parties was not present in that case. [865 B.]
• (2) An order of assessment of sales tax challenged by a taX payer,
could be split up and dissected so as to uphold it insofar as it related to
•
•
862
SIJPRF."'IE COURT REPORTS
[1969] I S.CR .
items ol :-ale v,:hich could he separated and taxed for
different
periods.
A
Therefore, a \vrit of 11u111da1nus \\·ould issue in the present case directing
the State not to realise sales-tax onlv in respect of transactions of
sale
which \Vere not taxable. that is. sales after Scptcrnhcr 6. 1955, 1867 F-Ci;
868 BJ
State of Ja111111u an1I Kasl1111ir v. Caltex (India) Ltd. 17 S.T.C.
612,
(S.C.) followed.
There is no inconsistency hetwcen the principle of lhe case of Ram
Narain Sons Ltd. v. Asst/. Commissioner of Sales Tax, [1955) 2 S.C.R.
483; 6 S.T.C. 627 on which respondent relied and that of the ca"' or
Caltex (/11dia) Ltd. [867 G-H)
OV!L APPELLATE Jt;RISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1364
of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 20, 1965
of the Rajasthan High ('nun in D.R. Civil Writ Petition No. 45
of 1959.
Niren De, Solicitor-Genera/ and K. Baldev Mehta, for the
appellants.
S. P. Mehta, N. N. Bhallachariyya, Bh111·1w'li K111nari, and
J. B. Dadaclumji, for the respondent.
B. Sen, G. S. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for the intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
The respondent-hereinafter called 'the assessee'-
has its Head Office at Calcutta and a Branch Office at Jaipur,
and is registered as a "dealer" under the Rajasthan Sales
Tax
Act, 1954.
Under a contract dated September 2, 1948, with
the Equitable Coal Company the assessee acquired
monopolExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.