1956 (6) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioners themselves to addressees outside West Bengal and (2) that the addition of Rs. 17,94,030 made by the assessing authority to the petitioners' taxable turnover on account of the transfer of delivery orders to the Adviser on Jute Supplies, Government of India, was illegal, as these were not sales but only transfer of actionable claims which are excluded from the definition of "goods" in the Act. As for the first point, the learned Advocate for the petitioners had to admit that his clients could not produce any documents, such as bill of lading, to show that the despatch of the goods had been made by or on behalf of the petitioners. He only relied on entries in his clients' books of accounts and also mates' certificates to show tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ally as the evidence itself is not enough to satisfy the Additional Commissioner that the goods had been despatched by or on behalf of the petitioners, as required by section 5(2)(a)(v) of the Act. As for the second argument of the learned Advocate for the peti- tioners, a complete answer is provided by the definition of "document of title to goods" in section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, where it is specifically laid down that order for the delivery of goods amounts to documents of title demands. This point was further clarified by the Calcutta High Court in Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. v. Omademull(2). There it was decided that a delivery order is recognised as a document of title under section 108 of the Contract Act and section 137 of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of India. So far as the manufacturers are concerned, they had no property at all in the goods after they had issued the delivery order for valuable consideration. Their position was only that of a bailee for the real owner. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has laid stress on the expression "in a deliverable state" contained in section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act. But that expression has again been defined in section 2(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, which says that goods are said to be in a deliverable state when they are in such state that a buyer would under the contract be bound to take delivery of them. Thus the facts of the present case do not clash with the conditions laid down for the sale being concluded as mentioned in s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X