LexTHE STATE OF BOMBAY versus M/S. RATILAL VADILAL AND BROS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 367 a.ppea.l in this Court. The compromise in question is intended to be filed in this Court for the purpose of M/s. Swadeslii enabling the parties to request this Court to pass an Cotton Mills Co., order in terms of the said compromise. The procedure Ltd., Kanpur for obtaining such an order which has to be followed . v. is the procedure prescribed by the rules of this Court, P Rka;des;wa0•1h just as if a compromise was reached before the Tribu- ras a_.,,. ers nal the procedure to be followed before it would becajendragadkar J. the procedure prescribed by its rules. Therefore we have no doubt that the compromise in question cannot attract the procedure prescribed by r. 5(1). The result is that the finding recorded by the Tri- bunal that the compromise in question is valid is obviously right a.nd must be confirmed.· Since it is found that the compromise in fact has ta.ken place and is otherwise valid, we have no hesitation in direc- ting that an order should be drawn in terms of the said compromise in the present appeal. Order accordinyly. THE STATE OF BOMBAY v. M/S. RATILAL V ADILAL AND BROS. (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAY.A.TULLAR and J. C. SHAH JJ.) Sales Tax-' Dealer'-Meaning of-Appeal by special leave- Whenavailable-Bombay Sales Tax Act, I953 (Bom. III of I95J), ss. 27(I), (b), (c), 3o(I), 34(I) and (z)-Constitution of India, Art. I36. One Nanalal Karsandas, who was a brick manufacturer, held a priority certificate for purchasing coal under the Colliery Control Order and purchased a certain quantity of coal from M/s. S. G. Rungta Colliery through the respondents who were commission agents. The respondents applied to the Collector for determining whether they could be described as "dealers" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The Collector held that they were dealers but the Sales Tax Tribunal held other- wise. No step was taken thereafter for a reference to the High Noveniber r5. The Stale of Bo1nbay v. M/s. 1-latilal Vadilal ~ B1·os. 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] Court under ss. 34(1) and 30(1) of the Act. On appeal by the State of Bombay by special leave, Held, that the respondents could not be described as "dealers" under the Act as the nature of their business as disclosed by them did not show that they were carrying on the business of selling goods in the State of Bombay but were only commission agents arranging sales to other persons. The proper course for the appellant was to move the High Court and exhaust all his remedies before invoking the jurisdic- tion of this court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 6, 1957 of the former Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 6 of 1956. 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. N. A. Palkhivala, S. P. Mehta, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents. 1960. November 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah ]. HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The State of Bombay has ap- pealed to this Court with special leave, against an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay, dated December 6, 1957, by which the Tribunal allowing the appeal before it, set aside an order of the Collector of Sales Ta;K passed under s. 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The respondents, Ratilal V adilal & Bros., are commission a.gents doing business as clearing and transport contractors. On June 25, 1954, they applied to the Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay, under ss. 27(a), (b) and (c) of the Act describing the nature of their business, citing one instance thereof, for determina- tion of the question whether they could be ca.lied "dealers" within the Act.\ The Collector by his order held that they were dealers, and were required to register themselves under the Act. On appeal, the Tribunal held otherwise, and hence this appeal by the State of Bombay. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 369 It appears that no action was taken to ask for a I960 reference to the High Court of Bombay under s. 34(1) n. State of read with ss. 30(1) and (2) of the Act. We have fre. Bombay quently noticed that all the remedies which are open v. to an appellant are not first exhausted before moving Mfs. Ratilal this Court. Ordinarily, this Court will not allow the Vadilal & Bros. High Court to be b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.