ARUN 1953 PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE turnover, the liability of which to sales tax is in dispute, consists of two items : (1) Rs. 3, 19, 503 and (2) Rs. 28, 749-12-0. THE Tribunal agreed with the Department in holding that these two items were also liable to sales tax. It was the correctness of those findings that the assessee challenged by this petition under section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act. It should be easier to dispose of the second item first. That represented the turnover of sales effected out of the stock held by the assessee at Madras, no doubt, on instructions from the Calcutta firm. On the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale took place only at Madras, and that the assessee was the dealer in relation to those sales. THE claim of the assessee that this item of Rs. 28, 749-12-0 is not liable to sales tax was rightly rejected. THE first item, Rs. 3, 19, 503, represented a turnover of sales of imported milk powder. THE Tribunal set out the course of dealings. Messrs Arun and Co., the principal firm at Calcutta, instructed the appellant "to take delivery of the documents of title on payment of the value to the bank and hand them over to the clearing agent, one S. G. Chetty". It should be obvious that the clearing agent was the agent of the assessee, Messrs Arun and Co. THE Tribunal proceeded :

(2.) THE Tribunal also found that these delivery orders were issued to the buyers by the assessee only after the steamer conveying the goods had arrived in the Madras Harbour. But that by itself may not be material in deciding when the sale was effected. THE Tribunal also pointed out :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee urged that it would be a case of sale of specific goods coming within the scope of section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act. On the facts of this case, we are unable to see any real basis for that contention. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to consider whether section 21 or section 22 would apply, because unless the goods sold are specific goods, as defined by section 2(14) of the Sale of Goods Act, the further question whether the transaction falls within the scope of section 20 or 21 or 22 may not arise. The transaction, in our opinion, really falls within the scope of section 23(1), which provides for a transfer of title to the goods sold when the contract of sale is entered into. When the goods to be sold were unascertained, as we have pointed out earlier in this case, the buyers from the assessee obtained title to the goods only at the point of delivery, because only at the point of delivery to the given buyer there was ascertainment of the goods sold to him. That was a sale after the import had been completed, and a sale which was within the State. Therefore, those sales were rightly held taxable by the Tribunal.The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.