1966 (10) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aler under the Assam Sales Tax Act (Act 17 of 1947). For the two periods ending September 30, 1959, and September 30, 1960, the Sales Tax Officer assessed the respondent to sales tax holding that hydrogenated oil was exempt from sales tax but the value of the containers should be assessed at Re. 1 for each container of hydrogenated oil and at 2 annas for salt bag and a small mustard oil tin which are other exempted goods for the period ending September 30, 1959. For the other period ending September 30, 1960, the value of the containers of the exempted goods was estimated at Rs. 21,500. The respondent preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, but the appeals were dismissed. The respondent preferred second appeals before the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he value of the containers is not assessable to sales tax. It was submitted that the parties may have intended in the circumstances to sell the hydrogenated oil apart from the containers; and the mere fact that the price of the containers was not separately fixed would make no difference to the assessment of sales tax. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. It is well- established that in order to constitute a sale it is necessary that there should be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to goods, the agreement must be supported by money consideration, and that as a result of the transaction the property should actually pass in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the seller as a convenient and cheap vehicle of transport. He may also have to consider the question whether, when a trader in cigarettes sold cigarettes priced at a particular figure for a specified number and handed them over to a customer in a cheap cardboard container of insignificant value, he intended to sell the cardboard container and the customer intended to buy the same? It is not possible to state as a proposition of law that whenever particular goods were sold in a container the parties did not intend to sell and buy the container also. Many cases may be visualized where the container is comparatively of high value and sometimes even higher than that contained in it. Scent or whisky may be sold in costly containers. Even cigar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X