Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Associated Electrical Industries, Nagpur-1 - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Application No. 24 of 1970
Judge
Reported in[1971]28STC531(Bom)
ActsCentral Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 3 and 5(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay
RespondentAssociated Electrical Industries, Nagpur-1
Appellant AdvocateR.J. Joshi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.V. Patel, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....licences in their own names but gave letters of authority to the respondents to enable them to import the goods. the respondents imported the goods from the united kingdom, cleared the goods from the customs barrier at bombay and despatched them to their destination in madhya pradesh in accordance with the terms of the various contracts between them and their buyers. 2. the respondents claimed exemption on the ground that the goods were sold in the course of import within the meaning of section 5(2) of the central sales tax act, 1956. it was common ground at all stages, and it is common ground before us also, that the sales would fall within section 5(2). but it was contended on behalf of the department that the sales would also fall under section 3 of the central sales tax act,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrachud, J.

1. The respondents, who are registered dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, carry on business in electrical goods. They supplied such goods to their customers outside the State of Maharashtra but the Sales Tax Officer assessed them on the footing that they had acted merely as agents of the buyers while importing the goods. The contention of the respondents that the sales were effected by them during the course of import was rejected. It must be mentioned that the respondents used to submit tenders to the buyers and the latter in turn used to place orders with the respondents. The goods thus sold to the buyers were to be imported by the respondents from the United Kingdom. The buyers obtained import licences in their own names but gave letters of authority to the respondents to enable them to import the goods. The respondents imported the goods from the United Kingdom, cleared the goods from the customs barrier at Bombay and despatched them to their destination in Madhya Pradesh in accordance with the terms of the various contracts between them and their buyers.

2. The respondents claimed exemption on the ground that the goods were sold in the course of import within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was common ground at all stages, and it is common ground before us also, that the sales would fall within section 5(2). But it was contended on behalf of the department that the sales would also fall under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as having been effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. This latter contention has been rejected by the Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. G. Khosla v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, Madras : [1966]3SCR352 .

3. Counsel for the department had conceded before the Tribunal, and the same concession is made before us, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khosla's case : [1966]3SCR352 would apply to the present case. It is however contended that an additional point which was urged in the present case was not urged before the Supreme Court and therefore the Tribunal should be asked to make a reference to this court for determination of that point. This, in our opinion, is not permissible. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in Khosla's case : [1966]3SCR352 and on those facts the Supreme Court negatived the contention of the department that the sales were in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on us and we cannot refuse to follow it on the supposition that if some other point was urged before the Supreme Court, the decision would have been different.

4. We therefore dismiss this petition and discharge the rule with costs.

5. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //