Skip to content


Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number Tax Case Nos. 170 and 213 of 1964 (Revision Nos. 113 and 143)
Judge
Reported in[1968]21STC195(Mad)
AppellantLoyal Textile Mills Ltd.
RespondentThe State of Madras
Appellant Advocate S. Padmanabhan, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Adv.-General for ;the Additional Government Pleader
Cases ReferredState of Gujarat v. Raipur
Excerpt:
- - recent decisions including those of this court have clearly laid down that such privity is not required. it was not its business to deal in goods like dealwood boxes, hoop iron, tiles etc......here. that can certainly be taken judicial notice of. it should, therefore, be held that this item of turnover has to be deleted from the chargeable turnover. in fact, learned advocate-general realising the position has quite fairly stated that really is the position.2. the other two items are common to both the petitions. of these, the first relates to whether the transactions involved in the relative turnovers for the two years comprise of export sales. the tribunal has held that they are not. we accept that finding. it is true that the tribunal in the course of its order proceeded on a misapprehension that privity of contract was necessary between the foreign buyer and the local seller in order to stamp the transaction with an export character. recent decisions including those of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Veeraswami, J.

1. The assessees are the same in both the petitions which relate to assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60. The chargeability of three items of turnover is in question. The first item which is peculiar to the assessment year 1957-58 relates to the question whether the turnover comprises of the last sales in the State. The contention for the assessee is that the purchaser Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Limited purchased cotton at Kovilpatti and took delivery there and later transported the same to their factory in Kerala State, that actually the company has been assessed as the last purchaser of the same goods and that being the case there can be no charge on the turnover of the petitioner. It is not disputed for the revenue that Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Limited has actually been assessed on the purchases made from the assessee here. That can certainly be taken judicial notice of. It should, therefore, be held that this item of turnover has to be deleted from the chargeable turnover. In fact, learned Advocate-General realising the position has quite fairly stated that really is the position.

2. The other two items are common to both the petitions. Of these, the first relates to whether the transactions involved in the relative turnovers for the two years comprise of export sales. The Tribunal has held that they are not. We accept that finding. It is true that the Tribunal in the course of its order proceeded on a misapprehension that privity of contract was necessary between the foreign buyer and the local seller in order to stamp the transaction with an export character. Recent decisions including those of this Court have clearly laid down that such privity is not required. It will suffice that, pursuant to orders received from foreign buyers, a local or outside dealer purchases goods and then appropriates and sends them by export. That will be a case of a sale which occasions the export though there may be no privity at all between the seller and the foreign buyer. But on the facts as found by the Tribunal, delivery appears to have been taken by the Bombay dealer in Madras and later consigned the goods by export. There is nothing to show that the purchase made by the Bombay dealer was to fulfil contracts entered into with foreign buyers or orders already received from them. Notwithstanding the misdirection of the Tribunal on the question of privity of contract, its conclusion has to be sustained.

3. The last item consists of sales of empty tins, dealwood boxes, hoop iron, tiles, cinder etc. The assessee during the relevant years was a dealer in yarn and cotton. It was not its business to deal in goods like dealwood boxes, hoop iron, tiles etc. In the course of its business it came by these goods which it had necessarily to dispose of. The intention in selling them was not to do business as such. This part of the turnover is covered by the principle in State of Gujarat v. Raipur . [1967] 19 S.T.C. 1

4. T.C. No. 170 of 1964 is allowed in respect of the first item of turnover and both the tax cases are allowed in respect of the last item. In other respects they will stand dismissed. No costs.


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