Skip to content


Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. R.V. Eswaran and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.C. Nos. 240 to 242 of 1970 and Revision Nos. 182 to 184
Judge
Reported in[1976]37STC543(Mad)
AppellantDeputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
RespondentR.V. Eswaran and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK. Venkataswami, Additional Government Pleader No. I
Respondent AdvocateV. Ramachandran, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....at salem. these two respondents were manufacturing appalams known as 'ammami appalam', in a unit at kallidaikurichi. the manufactured appalams were distributed to the firms at madurai and coimbatore and also to the individual partners in their sales depots at madras, tiruchirap palli and salem. the deputy commercial tax officer, ambasamudram, considered that there was a sale by the unit at kallidaikurichi to the partnership firm at madurai and coimbatore and also to the individual partners at madras, tiruchirappalli and salem and, accordingly, assessed the kallidaikurichi unit, represented by the respondents herein, to sales tax on the value of the appalams distributed as aforesaid for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. this order was confirmed by the appellate.....
Judgment:

V. Ramaswami, J.

1. The two respondents herein constituted a firm of partnership having head office at Madurai and a branch at Coimbatore. One of the partners had a separate sales depot of his own at Madras and the other partner had two other sales depots of his own, one at Tiruchirappalli and another at Salem. These two respondents were manufacturing appalams known as 'Ammami Appalam', in a unit at Kallidaikurichi. The manufactured appalams were distributed to the firms at Madurai and Coimbatore and also to the individual partners in their sales depots at Madras, Tiruchirap palli and Salem. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram, considered that there was a sale by the unit at Kallidaikurichi to the partnership firm at Madurai and Coimbatore and also to the individual partners at Madras, Tiruchirappalli and Salem and, accordingly, assessed the Kallidaikurichi unit, represented by the respondents herein, to sales tax on the value of the appalams distributed as aforesaid for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a further appeal, the Tribunal considered that the unit at Kallidaikurichi is a joint venture for manufacture of appalams and that they have simply divided the manufactured appalams among themselves and that there was no sale in fact by the Kallidaikurichi unit either to the individual partners or the firm at Madurai or Coimbatore as such. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the assessment orders.

2. We are in entire agreement with this order of the Tribunal. It is seen from the facts that no capital was invested by the partners as such in the Kallidaikurichi unit, that these two individuals bought the necessary raw materials for the manufacture of appalams and got the appalams made in the Kallidaikurichi unit and then either the firm or the individuals were lifting their required quantities of appalams to their business places at Madurai, Madras, Tiruchirappalli and Salem, and were selling them on their own accounts. At the end of the year the total manufacturing expenses were computed and then the expenditure was allocated to the individuals and the partnership in the ratio in which they have lifted the quantity of appalams either as individuals or firm as such. On these facts, we are of the view that it amounted to a joint venture for manufacture and division of the manufactured goods and no sale is involved in this case. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Tribunal. The petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150 in each case.


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