9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (5) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to as the Order) Qua licensee, he sold 3,965 bags of rice valued at Rs. 2,43,780.00 to the joint Director of Food and despatched the same to different places in West Bengal as per directions of the purchaser. When the Sales Tax Officer proceeded to assess him, the assessee raised the contention that the despatches were under the provisions of the Orissa Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1964. He was obliged to sell 50 per cent of his purchases under clause 3 of the Order. There was thus no sale and, consequently, there could be no liability under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This contention of the assessee was negatived both at the stage of assessment and by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to enter into a contract, cannot be called a "sale", even if the person supplying goods is declared entitled to the value of goods, which is determined or determinable in the manner prescribed. If there be a contract, the restrictions imposed by statute may not vitiate the consent. But the contract cannot be assumed. For rendering the decision in Narain Das' case(2), the learned Judges relied upon their own decisions in New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax[1963] 14 S.T.C. 316 (S.C.)., Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. State of Madras[1968] 21 S.T.C. 138 (S.C.). and Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1968] 21 S.T.C. 212 (S.C.). All these cases were, however, reviewed in a subsequent decision in Salar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the earlier case is not correct. Considering the Procurement (Levy) Order and keeping in view the test indicated in Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Mysore[1972] 29 S.T.C. 246 (S.C.)., we have no doubt in our mind that the conclusion reached in Narain Das' case[1970] 26 S.T.C. 344 (S.C.). would not be appropriate and it can still be said that there was a sale. The view taken by the Tribunal that there was a sale, therefore, must stand. 3.. The next contention of the assessee before us is that there could only be intra-State sales and, therefore, there was no sale exigible to Central sales tax. We find no merit in this contention. This has never been the assessee's case and if it is permitted to be argued, we have no doubt in our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
