TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being identical this judgment would govern all the six writ petitions. The factual matrix, which is broadly common may be taken from C.W.P. No. 1138 of 1982 (Messrs. Goodyear India Limited, Ballabgarh v. State of Haryana). The petitioner-company is a well-known concern engaged in the manufacture of various types of tyres and tubes at Ballabhgarh, within the State of Haryana and is registered as a dealer both under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Act"), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On the basis of the return submitted by the petitioner-company, respondent No. 2, the Assessing Authority has passed the assessment order, annexure P-1, dated 20th January, 1982. Therein it has been found that the company has transferred goods worth Rs. 43,32,61,857.59 as per books to its own branches and sales depots outside the State of Haryana, which were found to be in order. Rejecting the petitioner's claim that no tax was payable thereon the Assessing Authority took the view that under section 9 of the State Act purchase tax is leviable on proportionate value of the goods utilised in the manufacture of goods and sent to branches as stock transfer for sale. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage notified as such under section 18 of the said Act, if used by them for purposes other than those for which such goods were sold to them, shall be the rate of tax leviable on the sale of such goods: Provided that where any such dealer, instead of using such goods for the purpose for which they were sold to him, despatches such goods or goods manufactured therefrom at any time for consumption or sale outside the State of Haryana to his branch or commission agent or any other person on his behalf in any other State and such branch, commission agent or other person is a registered dealer in that State and produces a certificate from the assessing authority of that State or produces his own affidavit and the affidavit of the consignee of such goods duly attested by a Magistrate or Oath Commissioner or Notary Public in the form appended to this notification to the effect that the goods in question have been so despatched and received and entered in the account books of the consignee, the rate of tax on such goods shall be three paise in a rupee on the purchase value of the goods so despatched." 4.. At the very outset, it must be pointedly noticed that the learned Advocate-Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spose of some property to a man all too anxious to buy) (dispose of public offices to all his political friends); to get rid of; throw away: Discard (dispose of a lot of old clothes by burning them).......to treat or handle (something) with the result of finishing or finishing with..........Destroy.........." In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the relevant meaning of the words "dispose" and "disposal" are as follows, respectively: "3. To bestow, make over; to deal out, distribute." * * * "3. The action of giving or making over; bestowal, assignment, power or right to dispose of, ..................." It would seem to follow from the aforesaid dictionary meanings of the phrase "disposes of" that it may well involve the forsaking of both title and control over the goods. The most apt example may well be the disposing of goods by sale which may involve both the passing of title as of possession by delivery in favour of the purchaser. Even in the absence of a consideration, a gift with delivery of goods to another may amount to disposing of the same. Even with the utmost degree of liberality in favour of the respondent-State, disposal of goods would at least involve an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the control and possession thereof, it seems difficult if not impossible to hold that he has nevertheless disposed of those goods. Indeed, equating disposal with a mere despatch of goods to oneself under section 9(1)(a) of the Act, seems to lead not only to anomalous but also absurd results. On this construction, even if a dealer despatches goods to another branch or another godown of his, within the same State, even then it would come within the ambit of section 9(1)(a) of the Act. Surely, one cannot attribute to the legislature the intention of taxing every movement of goods from one place to another, whilst they remained under the same ownership and possession, within the State itself. With respect, it appears to me that adopting the construction canvassed on behalf of the respondent-State would lead to a patent anomaly, which on sound canons of construction has to be necessarily avoided. 9.. Now apart from principle, the authorities including those relied upon by the learned Advocate-General run counter to the stand taken on behalf of the respondent-State. In the larger context, here, what calls for prominent attention is the fact that a number of sales tax statutes in the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereof. The same position inheres in Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1969] 24 STC 343 (SC) on which also reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent-State. Therein, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were again construing section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 7 thereof distinctly provided both for the disposal of goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State and despatching them to a place outside the State. This judgment is thus plainly distinguishable. Again in Khushal Chand Laxmichand v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1981] 48 STC 567, the question before the Bench was whether wheat or jowar, purchased from unregistered dealers which had been supplied under the Foodgrains Levy Order to the Food Corporation of India, was exigible to purchase tax under section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. It is plain from the judgment that therein both title and possession of foodgrains had passed to the Food Corporation of India, but due to the compulsive provision of the Levy Order, it did not constitute a sale stricto sensu. In that peculiar context, the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
