Skip to content


Mansingh-ka Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 104 of 1967
Judge
Reported in1968MPLJ735; [1968]22STC503(MP)
AppellantMansingh-ka Oil Mills Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant Advocate Y.S. Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.K. Dubey, Government Adv.
Cases ReferredBengal Timber Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Excerpt:
- - the contention of the assessee was negatived by the taxing authorities as well as by the board of revenue (sales tax tribunal) in revision. khandwa, is clearly erroneous......the value of the transactions with the parties residing outside the madhya pradesh on the basis of price stipulated f.o.r. khandwa and of payment against railway receipts are assessable to sales tax in madhya pradesh as sales which took place within madhya pradesh ?3. the material facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling edible and sweet oil. the taxable turnover determined for the first period included a sum of rs. 7,70,446-5-6 which the assessee claimed was not liable to tax under article 286(1)(a) of the constitution. similarly for the second period the assessee claimed exemption from liability to tax on a sum of rs. 3,39,076-10-6. according to the assessee, these amounts represented the turnover of outside sales. the contention of.....
Judgment:

P.V. Dixit, C.J.

1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of M.C.C. No. 105 of 1967.

2. These two references under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, arise out of sales tax assessment proceedings against the assessee M/s. Mansingh-ka-Oil Mills Ltd., Khandwa, for the period from 1st July, 1949, to 30th June, 1950 (referred to as the first period by the Board of Revenue), and for the period from 1st July, 1950, to 30th June, 1951 (referred to as the second period by the Board of Revenue). The common question posed for our decision in both these references is-

Whether or not the turnover of Rs. 7,70,446-5-6 pies in the first period and of Rs. 3,39,076-10-6 pies in the second period representing the value of the transactions with the parties residing outside the Madhya Pradesh on the basis of price stipulated F.O.R. Khandwa and of payment against railway receipts are assessable to sales tax in Madhya Pradesh as sales which took place within Madhya Pradesh ?

3. The material facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling edible and sweet oil. The taxable turnover determined for the first period included a sum of Rs. 7,70,446-5-6 which the assessee claimed was not liable to tax under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. Similarly for the second period the assessee claimed exemption from liability to tax on a sum of Rs. 3,39,076-10-6. According to the assessee, these amounts represented the turnover of outside sales. The contention of the assessee was negatived by the taxing authorities as well as by the Board of Revenue (Sales Tax Tribunal) in revision. The Board of Revenue held that the sales were effected within the State of Madhya Pradesh itself. The Board reached this conclusion solely on the basis of the circumstance that in the contracts of sale entered into between the assessee and the purchasers of oil the place of delivery was mentioned as F.O.R. Khandwa. The Board did not examine or consider the effect of other terms of the contracts.

4. It will be seen from the frame of the question placed before us for decision that this Court has been invited to say whether 'on the basis of the price stipulated F.O.R. Khandwa and of payment against railway receipts, the sales in t question are assessable to sales tax in Madhya Pradesh as sales which took place within Madhya Pradesh'. In the statement of the case, it has been stated that it is common ground that the price stipulated was F.O.R. Khandwa. If the stipulated price was F.O.R. Khandwa and the F.O.R. condition was not for delivery of oil at Khandwa, then the Board's decision that the sales in question were inside sales, based solely on the circumstance that the place of delivery of oil was F.O.R. Khandwa, is clearly erroneous. As observed by the Supreme Court in Bengal Timber Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1967] 19 S.T.C. 366, the expression 'F.O.R.', when used in connection with the place of delivery, means that the delivery prima facie takes place when the goods are put on rail, and when the expression is used in connection with the price, then the rate is inclusive of all charges of putting the goods on rail. It is, therefore, plain that on the basis of the price stipulated F.O.R. Khandwa, it cannot be held that the sales of oil by the assessee were inside sales.

5. In regard to the question whether on the basis of 'payments against railway receipts' the sales in question can be held to be inside sales, that question really does not arise on the Board's order inasmuch as the Board of Revenue based its conclusion that the sales were inside sales solely on the position that the place of delivery was F.O.R. Khandwa. The Board did not examine other terms of the contracts and has nowhere held that as one of the terms of the contracts was about payment against railway receipts, the sales were inside sales.

6. It follows, therefore, that the question formulated by the Sales Tax Tribunal must be answered by saying that 'on the basis of the price stipulated F.O.R. Khandwa and of payment against railway receipts, it cannot be held that the turnover of the two periods specified in the question is assessable to sales tax'. It is unnecessary to add that in view of our answer to the question, the Board of Revenue must rehear the revision petitions preferred by the assessee and, after examining all the terms of the contracts of sale and after considering the effect of those terms and giving clear findings, determine the question whether the turnover of Rs. 7,70,446-5-6 in the first period and Rs. 3,39,076-10-6 in the second period is assessable to sales tax.

7. For these reasons, our answer to the question is that on the basis of the price stipulated F.O.R. Khandwa and of payment against railway receipts it cannot be held that the turnover of the two periods specified in the question is assessable to sales tax. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of the references.


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