Skip to content


M.A.M.V. Ramasami Nadar and Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number Tax Case No. 214 of 1970 (Revision No. 156)
Judge
Reported in[1975]36STC373(Mad)
AppellantM.A.M.V. Ramasami Nadar and Sons
RespondentState of Tamil Nadu
Appellant Advocate C. Venkataraman, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K. Venkataswami, the Additional Government Pleader No. 1
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - the facts clearly establish that part of the bargain with the mill is that in lieu of the decorticating charges the miller will have to take the husk itself and give the kernel to the petitioners......having dealings in groundnuts on behalf of the agriculturist-principals. after receiving the groundnuts from the agriculturists, the petitioners sent them for decortication with some third party millers. as cooly charges or charges for hulling, husk is given to the mills and only groundnut kernel is taken delivery of by the petitioners. the contention of the revenue was that there is a sale of the husk to the mill by the petitioners and that, therefore, the value of the husk is liable to be taxed. we are entirely at a loss to understand either the reasoning or finding of the tribunal that the value of the husk is liable to be taxed. the facts clearly establish that part of the bargain with the mill is that in lieu of the decorticating charges the miller will have to take the husk.....
Judgment:

V. Ramaswami, J.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this tax case is as to whether the petitioners are liable to pay tax on a turnover of Rs. 14,258, which represented the value of husk left by the petitioners with the millers in lieu of cooly charges.

2. Facts found by the Tribunal are as follows :

The petitioners are commission agents having dealings in groundnuts on behalf of the agriculturist-principals. After receiving the groundnuts from the agriculturists, the petitioners sent them for decortication with some third party millers. As cooly charges or charges for hulling, husk is given to the mills and only groundnut kernel is taken delivery of by the petitioners. The contention of the revenue was that there is a sale of the husk to the mill by the petitioners and that, therefore, the value of the husk is liable to be taxed. We are entirely at a loss to understand either the reasoning or finding of the Tribunal that the value of the husk is liable to be taxed. The facts clearly establish that part of the bargain with the mill is that in lieu of the decorticating charges the miller will have to take the husk itself and give the kernel to the petitioners. There is no sale of the husk involved in this matter. Husk is given only as charges for decortication and there is no sale. The petition is accordingly allowed. The turnover of Rs. 14,258 is therefore deleted from the assessment. The petitioners will be entitled to costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.


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