STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND OTHERS versus THE BOMBAY CO. LTD.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 1112 · Decided: 16-10-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Hanumant 
v. 
·T lie State of 
Madhya 
Pradesh. 
Mahaian /. 
1952 
Oct. 16. 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1952] 
The result is that the consolidated appeal is allowed, 
the judgments of all the three courts below are 
set 
aside and the appellants are acquitted. 
Appellants acquitted. 
Agent for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 
of 1951 : Ganpat Rai. 
Agent for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 57 
of 1951 : Rajinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. 
STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND 
' 
OTHERS 
v. 
THE BOMBAY CO. LTD. 
STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND 
ANOTHER 
v. 
MICHAEL FREDERICK AND BROS. 
STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND 
ANOTHER 
v. 
STAGBROOK RUBBER AND TEA 
ESTATES LTD. 
UNION 
OF 
INDIA, 
STATE OF 
BOMBAY, 
STATil 
OF 
MADRAS, 
STATil 
OF 
HYDERABAD, 
STATE 
OF 
PUNJAB, 
STATil 
OF 
MYSORE, 
STATE 
OF 0RISSA 
AND 
STATE 
OF 
UTIAR PRADESH-Interveners. 
[PATANJALI SAsrn1 C.J., MuKHERJEA, DAs, 
VIVIAN BosE and Gnm.AM HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article 286( I) ( b )-Sales tax-Exemp. 
tion of sales in the course of export or import-Meant"ng of "in the 
course of"-..'iolcs tvhel'e property passes and sale is co1nplete before 
r 
' \ 
L 
"• 
J 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1113 
goods move out of State, whether exempt-Interpretation of article 
286 (!) (b)-Decisions on Commerce and Import-Export clauses 
of American Constitution-Speeches of Members of Constituent 
Assembly-Relevancy. 
Whatever else may or may not fall within art. 286( 1) (b) 
of the Constitution, 
sales and purchases which themselves occa-
sion the export or the import of the goods as the case may be, 
out of or into, the territory of India come within the exemption. 
The view that no sale or purchase can be said to take place 
in the course of export or import unless tho property in the goods 
is transferred to the buyer during their actual movement, as for 
instance, 
where 
the 
shipping 
documents 
are 
indorsed 
and 
delivered within the State by the seller to a local agent of the 
foreign 
buyer after the goods 
have been actually 
shipped 
or 
where such documents are cleared on payment, or on 
acceptance, 
by the Indian buyer before the arrival of the goods within the 
State, puts too narrow a construction upon art. 286(1)(b) and 
is 
not correct. 
A sale by export involves a series of integrated activities 
commencing from the agreement of sale with a foreign buyer and 
ending with the delivery of the goods to a common carrier for 
transport out of the country by land or sea. 
Such a sale cannot 
be 
dissociated 
from 
the export 
without 
which it cannot 
be 
dtectuated an<l 
the 
sale and the resultant export form parts of a 
single transaction. Of these two integrated activities which to· 
gether constitute an export sale. whichever first occurs can well 
he rer1rded as taking place in the course of the other. 
Even in 
cases where the property in the goods passed to the 
foreign 
buyers and the sales were thm completed, within the State before 
the goods commence<l their journey from the State, the 
sales 
must be regarded as having taken place in the course of the 
c~port and therefore ,.,;empt under art. 286(1)(h). 
The 
Commerce clause 
(article 
l, 
section 
8(3)) and the 
Import-Export clauses [article I, sections 9 (5) 
anJ 10 (2)] of 
the American Constitution are widely different in language, scope 
and purpose, .rnd a varying body of doctrines and tests have 
grown around them interpreting, extending or restricting 
from 
time to time, their operation and application in the context of 
I he expanding American commerce and industry 
and 
much help 
qnnot be derived from them in the solution of the problems aris-
ing under article 286 of the Indian Constitution. 
Speeches made by the members of the Constituent Assembly 
in the course of the debates on the draft Constitution cannot 
be 
used as aids for interpreting the Constitution. 
Administrator General of Bengal v. Prem 
Nath Mullick 
[22 
LA. 107 at 1181, A. K. Gopalan v. The State [(1950) S.C.R. 881, 
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association 
[ 169 U.S. 290 
at 318) referred to. 
143 
1952 
State of 
Travancore-
Cochin 
and Others 
v. 
The Bombay 
Co. Ltd. 
1952 
State of 
Travancore· 
Cochin 
11nd Others 
v. 
TAc Bombay 
Co. Ltd. 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuR1snicTioN : Civil Appeal No. 
25 of 1952. 
Appeals from the 
Judgment and Order dated the 
10th day of 
January, 1952, of the High Court 
of

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