PROVINCIAL AUTOMOBILE COMPANY LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the facts are as follows. Messrs. Ford Motor Company of India, Ltd., Bombay, place allotments of cars in favour of the applicant who is one of their distributors. The applicant has a branch at Akola and another at Jabalpur. Within the allotments placed at his disposal the applicant strikes bargains with others and sells the Ford cars to them thus securing some profit on each transaction. The Diwan of Nandgaon State wanted one Super Deluxe Fordor Sedan. In the allotment of May, 1947, the Ford Motor Company of India, Ltd. allotted 4 Ford V-8 Super Deluxe Fordor Sedans. On 15th May, 1947, the applicant asked the Ford Motor Company to send the car direct to Rajnandgaon by rail. The Ford Motor Company on 9th June, 1947, sent the car by rail to Rajnandgaon. However, in the invoice dated 4th June, 1947, the engine number is mentioned. Thus it appears that on 4th June, 1947, the car in question was ear-marked for being sent to the Diwan, Nandgaon State. From the invoice it appears that the applicant had to pay Rs. 7,882 for the car to the Ford Motor Company. The applicant has sold the car to the Diwan of Nandgaon State for Rs. 9,487.

(2.) MESSRS . Anandji Hardas and Company, Ltd., wanted one Mercury '8' Town Sedan. The allotment of April, 1947, for this type of car was two. Shri Hansraj Anandji wanted to take delivery of the car at Bombay itself. Accordingly on 18th July, 1947, the applicant asked the Ford Motor Company to hand over the car to Shri Hansraj Anandji, the representative of Messrs. Anandji Hardas and Company. On 22nd July, 1947, the car was handed over to Shri Hansraj Anandji by the Ford Motor Company, Bombay. The applicant sold this car to Messrs. Anandji Hardas and Company for Rs. 11,147-13-0 only. For this car the applicant had to pay Rs. 9,252-6-0 only to the Ford Motor Company, Bombay.

(3.) BEFORE the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur Region, the applicant contended that these sales were made outside the province and that sales tax is not leviable on these transactions. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax did not accept this contention of the applicant and he assessed sales tax on these transactions also. The applicant went up in appeal to the Sales Tax Commissioner who agreed with the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. It is against this order of the Sales Tax Commissioner that the applicant has come up in revision.