TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision Nos. 98-106 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2013 - SATISH CHANDRA (DR), J. For the Appellant : I.B. Singh, Neerav Chitravanshi and R.S. Chitravanshi For the Respondent : The C.S.C. DR. SATISH CHANDRA J.- All the present revisions are the cross-revisions filed by the assessee (Deputy Narcotics Commissioner) as well as by the Department against the different judgments/orders passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, for the assessment years mentioned above. The brief facts of the revisions are that the assessee is a Department of the Central Government who is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of drugs. Opium is a raw material for manufacturing of various drugs. So, opium is cultivated by the farmers on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Government, who is exclusively owner of the crop of the opium as per the contract with the cultivators. The Narcotic Department granted a licence to each and every cultivator to grow the opium on behalf of the assessee. Thus, the Department is the owner of the crop. So, there is no question of sale of opium by the cultivator to the Department. However, he admitted that the sale of the opium is taxable item as per the judgment passed by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 4354 of 2000 dated September 28, 2005, Union of India v. Sales Tax Officer, Ghazipur. He also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari [1976] 38 STC 577 (SC). But he submits that the honourable Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as defined in Benjamin's Treatise on 'sale', may seem to be satisfied even if delivery of goods is in obedience to an order to deliver them for a consideration, fixed or to be fixed, if we stretch mutual assent to cover assent resulting from orders given, yet, it is difficult to see how such a transaction would be based on a contractual tie. According to section 4(3) of our Sale of Goods Act, a sale results only from a contract which presupposes a minimal area of freedom of choice where the ordinary mechanism of proposal and acceptance operates. The learned counsel also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Coffee Board, Karnataka, Banglore v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka [1988] 70 STC 162 (SC); [1988] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the scheme of the Act in the Coffee Board; it is a statutory obligation imposed on the Coffee Board and does not make it a trustee in any event. It is also not possible to accept the submission that the Central Sales Tax Act will not be applicable to any sale by the Coffee Board because it was an export sale by the Coffee Board. In Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore [1980] 46 STC 164 (SC), it has been held that there must be a prior agreement at the time when the transaction of sale takes place. No such prior agreement existed in this case. 49. In New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar [1963] 14 STC 316 (SC); [1963] Supp 2 SCR 459, Hidayatullah, J. as the Chief Justice then was, observed that so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this purpose, the judgment and order dated January 21, 2000 passed by this honourable court in the case of Union of India v. Sales Tax Officer, Ghazipur (W.P. No. 167 of 1989) was upheld by the honourable Supreme Court. When it is so, then the revisions filed by the Narcotic Department (T.T.R. Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88 of 2006 and T.T.R. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 of 2000) have no merits and the same are hereby dismissed. II. Trade Tax Revision Nos. 185, 202, 203, 204, 205 and 206 of 2008 are concerned with the interest imposed under section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. After hearing both the parties, it appears that section 8, sub-clause (1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 deals regarding the interest. On reproduction, the said provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 8 of the Act and not in terms of sub-section (1B) of section 8 of the Act. 17. This court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Qureshi Crucible Centre [1993] 89 STC 467 (SC) has held that where a dealer fails to pay tax at the correct rate because he claimed not to know the revision in the rate, the dealer remains liable to pay interest at a higher rate, the penal rate under section 8(1) from the date when the tax became due and payable. In such a case, the dealer cannot claim that he is liable only from the date of the assessment order fixing the correct rate of tax. 18. Similarly, in a case where the dealer has taken a chance and it has been held that the tax is payable under the Act, the same becomes payable from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
