9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adesh High Court in references under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Civil Appeal No. 768 of 1977 relates to the assessment period 1951-52, Civil Appeal No. 539 of 1978 relates to 1950-51 and Civil Appeal No. 1038 of 1978 to 1952-53. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement in the factory located at Kymore in Madhya Pradesh. Several cement manufacturing companies as also the appellant had entered into an arrangement with the Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd., whereunder the Marketing Company was appointed as the sole and exclusive sales manager for the sale of cement manufactured by the manufacturing companies and the manufacturing companies had agreed not to sell directly or indirectly any of their cement to any pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or should be regarded as intra- State. It is seen that the Cement Marketing Company is an independent Organisation and is carrying on business as an independent entity. It is also seen that what has actually been taxed are the sales effected by the appellant to the Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd., and not the sales made to the parties which obtained an authorisation from the Cement Controller. This seems to be the crux of the matter." On this basis reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1961] 12 STC 615 at 620 where, after analysing the terms of the contract between the manufacturer (appellant before the Supreme Court) and the Marketing Company, this Court held: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant and the Marketing Company in this case has the same terms as this Court considered in Rohtas Indus- tries case [1961] 12 STC 615. It follows, therefore, that it must be held that there was a sale between the appellant and the Marketing Company. The Marketing Company had its establishment at Nagpur within the State of Madhya Pradesh at that time. There was, therefore, a preceding local sale prior to the sales between the Marketing Company and the allottee of cement by the regulating authority. This Court in Rohtas Industries [1961] 12 STC 615, further found that the transaction between the manufacturer and the Marketing Company had nothing to do with the Marketing Company's sales to third parties. There was no privity between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities is that the delivery of the cement was not the direct result of such sale or purchase of the cement outside the State. In the absence of such privity the explanation is not attracted to the transactions. An attempt was made by counsel to rely upon some of the later decisions of this Court where with reference to the provisions contained in the Central Sales Tax Act the law had been laid down. It is unnecessary to refer to them in view of the finding recorded by the authorities that the cement in this case actually had not been delivered as a direct result of such sale or purchase for the purpose of consumption outside the State. That is a finding clinching enough and once that is taken as binding on this Court, the only conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
