TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the last dealers who bought those cotton bales in the State and the single point tax under section 5(2) of the Act had to be levied from them and not from the respondents. - Civil Appeal No. 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, & 724 of 1965, - - - Dated:- 30-9-1966 - SHAH J.C., RAMASWAMI V. AND BHARGAVA V. JJ. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R.N. Sachthey, for the appellant. R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARGAVA, J. -These appeals arise out of proceedings for assessment of sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (No. 9 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act ") in respect of certain s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and a total turnover of Rs. 3,71,880-13-0 which would cover the items 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36 and 37 of the typed statement of account for the year 1955-56) and send the railway receipts to their bankers at the other end for the collection of the amount. It is seen that notwithstanding the fact that there are specific provisions in the contract that 90 per cent. of the invoice amounts should be paid to the bankers when the railway receipts would be delivered to the purchasers, surprisingly the said provision is rendered nugatory by reason of the fact that the appellants despatch the cotton in such a way that the consignee could get cotton bales at the other end even without any payment to the banker. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondents was that the cotton was sold by them within the State of Madras to parties who were residing outside the State of Madras; but the sales having been made by them within the State of Madras, they could not be held to be dealers who bought the cotton in the State and were the last dealers for that purpose not exempt from taxation. According to their contention, the parties to whom they sold the cotton within the State were the persons liable to be taxed in accordance with section 5(2) of the Act and rule 4-A(iv)(b) of the Rules. The Tribunal accepted this plea of the respondents, allowed the appeals, and set aside the orders of the subordinate authorities directing payment of sales tax by the respondents. That order was uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of entering into contracts for sale, or for purposes of taking delivery. Delivery was given to common carrier, and consequently, it should be held that the sales were completed not within the State, but outside at the places to which the goods were consigned for delivery to the various parties. We are unable to accept this submission. It has been rightly held by the High Court that the common carrier took delivery as agent of the buyer and that delivery was within the State. There is the further circumstance that, during transit, the goods were insured by the buyers at their own cost, and not by the respondents. The buyers thus recognised that they were already the owners of the cotton bales as soon as they were given for trans- mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tton bales were delivered to the buyers. The movement of the cotton bales outside the State was by the buyers themselves after property in them had passed to them, so that these sales were not sales in the course of inter-State trade. We now come to the second and the main point which was urged before us by learned counsel for the appellant. The submission of learned counsel was that a buyer, who was not resident within the area to which the Act applied, could not be held to be the last dealer for purposes of rule 4-A(iv)(b) of the Rules. According to him, it is the situs of the seller and the buyer which determines the applicability of this rule, and not the situs of the sale of cotton itself. We are unable to accept this submission. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, an alternative argument was also raised for the first time by learned counsel for the appellant that those outside buyers could not be held to be dealers carrying on the business of purchase in the State, and if they were not dealers, the purchases by them had to be ignored, so that the last buyers in the State would be the respondents, because their purchases would be the last purchases by dealers made when they acquired these cotton bales subsequently sold by them. This contention was not raised at any earlier stage before the Tribunal or the High Court, and it is, therefore, not open to the appellant to urge it before this Court for the first time. In any case, it is clear that the outside buyers were all mills which were purchasing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
