Skip to content


Kuppuswami Mudaliar and Sons Vs. State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 405 of 1969 and Revision No. 280 of 1969
Judge
Reported in[1974]34STC6(Mad)
AppellantKuppuswami Mudaliar and Sons
RespondentState of Madras
Appellant AdvocateT.K. Seshadri, Adv. for ;T.S. Viswanatha Rao and ;K. Venkataswami, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateK. Venkataswami, First Assistant Government Pleader (Tax)
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) of the act, as the inter-state sales are not to registered dealers.2. the assessee questioned the rate of tax before the appellate assistant commissioner, but without success. his appeal before the tribunal also did not succeed. hence the assessee has come before this court.3. we find that the ground on which the assessee's claim for concessional rate of tax is rejected is that his inter-state sales were not to registered dealers. it is not in dispute that the assessee had produced c forms from the purchasing dealers. but the c form declarations have not been accepted on the ground that the purchasing dealers were not registered dealers on the dates of sales.4. in this case, the assessee has despatched the goods to.....
Judgment:

Ramanujam, J.

1. The assessee was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the assessment year 1963-64 on a turnover of Rs. 8,515 at 10 per cent. The assessing authority took the view that the assessee is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the Act, as the inter-State sales are not to registered dealers.

2. The assessee questioned the rate of tax before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but without success. His appeal before the Tribunal also did not succeed. Hence the assessee has come before this Court.

3. We find that the ground on which the assessee's claim for concessional rate of tax is rejected is that his inter-State sales were not to registered dealers. It is not in dispute that the assessee had produced C forms from the purchasing dealers. But the C form declarations have not been accepted on the ground that the purchasing dealers were not registered dealers on the dates of sales.

4. In this case, the assessee has despatched the goods to the purchasing dealers on 26th March, 1964, and 28th March, 1964; but the goods have actually been taken delivery of by the purchasing dealers by clearing the documents from the bank after payment of the sale price. The question is, as to when the sales can be said to have been completed. The Tribunal has taken the view that the dates of despatch of goods should be taken as the dates of sale. The learned Counsel for the assessee contends that the dates of sale should be taken to be the dates when the property in the goods passed from the assessee to the purchasing dealers, and that, therefore, the railway receipts having been retired from the banks by payment of the sale price by the purchasing dealers after 2nd April, 1964, it should be taken that the transfer of property in the goods from the assessee to the purchasing dealers took place after 2nd April, 1964, when the purchasing dealers had admittedly registered themselves under the Central Sales Tax Act. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee in this case despatched to the out-of-State purchasers and sent the relative railway receipts through banks. Until the out-of-State purchasing dealers retired the railway receipts from the bank on payment of the sale price, the assessees should be taken to have retained the right of disposal. Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act provides :

Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.

5. In this case, as the assessee has retained the right of disposal, he cannot be said to have parted with the title to the goods before the goods were actually taken delivery of by the purchasers. Admittedly, in this case, the out-of-State dealers took delivery of the goods only after 2nd April, 1964. Therefore, the sale by the assessee to the out-of-State dealers can be said to have been completed only after 2nd April, 1964, when the purchasing dealers had registered themselves under the Act. On the facts of this case, we are, therefore, clear that the sales by the assessee were to registered dealers and such registered dealers have given the C form declarations as required under the Act. In our view, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of tax.

6. The tax case is, therefore, allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150.


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