Skip to content


Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. Vs. State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 335 of 1963
Judge
Reported in[1966]18STC479(Mad)
AppellantBurmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd.
RespondentState of Madras
Appellant AdvocateV. Thyagarajan, ;R. Sasidaran, Advs., i/b., King and Partridge
Respondent AdvocateAdditional Government Pleader
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred and Cement Marketing Co. v. State of Mysore
Excerpt:
- - the revision carried by the company to the commissioner of commercial taxes proved unsuccessful......here) sold in 1957-58, 84,200 gallons of petrol and 1,70,600 gallons of diesel oil to the state transport department, nagercoil, for its own consumption pursuant to an indent for its requirements on messrs burmah shell oil storage and distributing company at trivandrum. on the directions of the madras company, the trivandrum depot supplied the motor spirit to the transport department at the pump located in the workshop at nagercoil. the bills were issued by the madras office and passed for payment by the accounts officer of the transport department at madras. these sales were treated as retail sales within the state of madras, exigible to tax under section 3(1) of the madras sales of motor spirit taxation act, 1939 (act 6 of 3939), and the company was accordingly assessed to tax.....
Judgment:

Chandra Reddy, C.J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Veeraswami, J., declining to remove on certiorari the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kanyakumari, which was ultimately confirmed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The material facts as emerge from the records are as follows : Messrs Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company (appellants here) sold in 1957-58, 84,200 gallons of petrol and 1,70,600 gallons of diesel oil to the State Transport Department, Nagercoil, for its own consumption pursuant to an indent for its requirements on Messrs Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company at Trivandrum. On the directions of the Madras company, the Trivandrum depot supplied the motor spirit to the Transport Department at the pump located in the workshop at Nagercoil. The bills were issued by the Madras office and passed for payment by the Accounts Officer of the Transport Department at Madras. These sales were treated as retail sales within the State of Madras, exigible to tax under Section 3(1) of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939 (Act 6 of 3939), and the company was accordingly assessed to tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kanyakumari.

2. Complaining against this assessment and contending that the sales were inter-State sales not subject to tax under the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939, the company preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes but the same was rejected. The revision carried by the company to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes proved unsuccessful. Subsequently the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked to quash the assessment. As observed earlier, our learned brother Veeraswami, J., dismissed the petition being of the opinion that the sales were intra-State sales and as such came within the purview of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939.

3. In this appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, it is maintained by Sri V. Thyagarajan that as the indents were placed at Trivandrum and the supplies were made from the Trivandrum depot, the transactions partook the character of inter-State sales and as such fell outside the scope of the Act. In support of this proposition, learned counsel cited two decisions of the Supreme Court, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Stale of Mysore : [1963]3SCR792 and Cement Marketing Co. v. State of Mysore : [1963]3SCR777 . We do not think that neither of these two cases lend support to the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. Both of them were cases in which the sales occasioned the movement of goods across the State borders.

4. But that is not the situation in the present case. Here it was essentially a local sale. Although the indents were placed at Trivandrum and supplies were sent from Trivandrum depot, none of the ingredients of an inter-State trade is present in this case. Obviously, the indents were placed at Trivandrum for the reason that it was near Kanyakumari and for the same reason, the supplies were made from that depot. There was no agreement between the State Transport Department and the appellants regarding the source of supply. It is only for the sake of convenience that the appellants had chosen the Trivandrum depot for the transport of motor spirit.

5. This transport could not be integrated with the activity of the sale. Admittedly the appellants brought the motor spirit in their own lorries, no doubt from their stock point in Trivandrum, stored it in the pumps belonging to them and supplied it to the Transport Depart- ment whenever it needed it. Therefore it cannot be posited in the present case that the sale itself occasioned the transport of the motor spirit to Kanyakumari. The contract can be fulfilled by supplying motor spirit from the stocks of the company from any place. The choice was left to the company as to the place from which it could transport the motor spirit. It is immaterial to the State Transport Department wherefrom the stocks came. It should also be remembered that it is only on the direction issued by the appellants that the spirit was brought in the appellants' lorries as their own property and pumped into their storage tanks. It may be mentioned here that the bills were issued by the Madras office and passed for payment by the Accounts Officer of the Transport Department at Madras. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accede to the proposition that these intra-State sales will be converted into inter-State sales for the reasons adduced by the appellants. We are therefore unable to disagree with our learned brother in his decision.

6. In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fees Rs. 250.


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