LexTHE UNION OF INDIA versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1955 Rajalzmundry Eketric Supp/;! Corporation Ltd. v. A· Nageswara Rao and others 1955 D1tnnbt' 19. 1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS appointed to manage its affairs, when action under section 153-C. This contention must ingly be rejected. [1955] is taken accord- In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, of the first respondent. The costs of the administrator will come out of the estate. THE UNION OF INDIA v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS (WITH CONNECTED APPEAL) [S, R. DAs, ACTING C. J., VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS and B. P. SINHA JJ.] Sales Tax-Sale of hessian to the Ministry of Industry and Supplies of the Government of India-If exempt from payment of sales tax-Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (Bengal Act VI of 1941), s. 5(2)(•)(iii). . -Per S. R. DAs, AcTING C.J., V1v1AN BosE, BHAGWATI AND JAGANNADHADAS JJ., SINHA J. · dissenting.-The exemption created by the provisions of s. 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act of 1941 must be construed strictly and cannot be extended to sales to Government departments other than those mentioned there- in. The Department of Industries and Supplies, which was subse- quently rcdesignated as the Ministry of Industries and Supplies, was not ·the same as the Indian Stores Department or the Supply Dc-- partmcnt of the Government. of India and~ consequently, sales _made to the Ministry of Industries and. Supplies are not exempt from pay~ ment of sales tax under that section. In a welfare State with ever expanding activities in different fields including trade and commerce, Government departments arc often entrusted with the performance of well~defined activities and are authorised to deal with the outside world and enter into transac- tions in the .same way as an ordinary person or a Company may do and may well 0be. regarded as distinct units or quasi-legal entities for µie ·purpose for which they are created. Consequently, the. sales _of hessian made to the Ministry of Industries and Supplies of the Government of India by the appel- lant Mills were hot exempt from payment of sales tax under the Act and the State of West Bengal was entitled to levy the same. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS um Per S1NHA J.-The language of a statute has sometimes to be construed in a modified form in order to give effect to the real inten- tions of the legislature where, as in the present case, the language is only of a descriptive nature and not a definitive one. Miller v. Salomons ([1852] 7 Exchequer 475), referred to. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Forest ( [1890] 15 A. C. 334 ), held inapplicable. The terms of s. 5(2)(a)(iii) indicate that the exemption created attaches to a particular function of the Government of India des- cribed by a certain name. The change of nomenclature was, therefore, of no consequence so long as a particular department continued to discharge that func· tion, namely, that of purchasing articles including hessian for the Government of India. History of the department shows that the Ministry of Industry and Supply is a lineal descendant of the Tndian Stores Department and was at the time of the contract discharging its function on be- half of the Government of India and, consequently, the sales made to it must ~ held to be exempt from payment of sales tax. A department of the Government is neither a natural nor a legal person but is one of the many functions of a Government placed in charge of a hierarchy of officials with the head of the de- partment at the apex. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 9 and 10 of 1954. On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 9th day of June 1952 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 26 of 1952 arising out of the Order dated the 6th day of December 1951 of the said High Court exercising its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdic- tion in Matter No. 110 of 1950. C . . K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the appellant in C. A. No. 9 of 1954 and respondent No. 3 in No. lO·of 1954. S. Chowdhury, (S. N. Mukherji, B. N. Ghosh and A. K. Bose, with him) for the appellant in C. A. No. 10 of 1954. S. M. Bose, Advocate-Genera/. of West Bengal, (B. Sen and P. K. Bose, with him) for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in both appeals. 1955 Thi Union of India v. The Commneial T tJJt Ojfim, Wut B1ngal and otlwrs 19!>
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.