1957 (8) TMI 20 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Article 286(2) of the Constitution regarding taxation on inter-State trade or commerce.
2. Determination of whether purchases made by a commission agent qualify as inter-State trade.
3. Comparison of different judicial opinions on the definition of inter-State trade.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Article 286(2) of the Constitution concerning the taxation of goods in inter-State trade. The petitioner argued that the transactions in question fell within the ambit of inter-State trade and should be exempt from taxation under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125.

2. The assessment order challenged by the petitioner was based on purchases made by the commission agent on behalf of non-resident principals. The court analyzed whether these purchases, without a specific term for transportation across State boundaries, could be considered as inter-State trade. The court concluded that in the absence of such a term, the purchases did not qualify as inter-State trade.

3. The judgment referenced various judicial opinions to support its decision. It highlighted the dissenting judgment in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, emphasizing the need for both a sale of goods and transportation across State boundaries under the contract of sale to constitute inter-State trade. The court also cited opinions from Rottschaefer and Hartman on Constitutional Law and State Taxation of Inter-State Commerce to reinforce its interpretation.

4. The court compared the dissenting judgments in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-Nut Factory and State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. with the prevailing view. It noted that these opinions stressed the commercial significance and normal flow of trade in determining inter-State trade but ultimately upheld the requirement of transportation across State boundaries under the contract of sale.

5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the purchases in question did not meet the criteria for inter-State trade as per the established legal principles. The judgment highlighted the importance of contractual terms involving transportation across State boundaries in determining the applicability of inter-State trade provisions.