MAHESWAR MAHAPATRO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Jeypore, (opposite party No. 3) assessed the petitioner with sales tax by an order dated 22nd September, 1968, (annexure 'd') for the year 1965-66 in respect of the quantity of rice and wheat (controlled goods) sold by him. As the petitioner was an unregistered dealer, he was also assessed with penalty. The writ application has been filed to quash the assessment on the ground that the petitioner is not a dealer. The petitioner's case is that he distributed rice and paddy under an agreement, a sample copy of which is annexure 'a'. Annexure 'b' is the order issued by the District Magistrate, Koraput, on 6th August, 1965, to the petitioner appointing him as a retailer for sale of Government rice. A similar order was issued for sale of wheat. The petitioner's stand is that he was an agent of the Government in the matter of distribution and supply of the controlled commodities, wheat and rice, which were in short supply. He takes the alternative plea that even assuming that he was not an agent and the title to the goods passed to him, yet the transfer of the goods by him to the consumers did not constitute a sale as there was no agreement between him and the consumers for sale of goods.

(2.) TO appreciate the contentions raised in the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the essential terms on which the petitioner was appointed as a retailer for sale of Government rice. By annexure 'b' he was informed that he had been appointed as a retailer to sell Government rice at Jeypore town subject to the conditions given below. The conditions were -

(3.) IN the course of argument Mr. Rath did not press the first contention. He thus accepted the position that there was relationship of seller and buyer between the Government and the petitioner. This concession is well founded. Under the terms of the agreement the petitioner was to pay the entire price before delivery of the controlled articles to him. Thus, title to the goods passed to the petitioner on payment of the price in cash. There was an agreement between the Government and the petitioner whereby he agreed to purchase the controlled articles from the Government on conditions and terms as mentioned in the agreement and the order of his appointment as a retailer. Thus in the transaction between the Government and the petitioner, the latter became the owner of the controlled goods. After purchase, if the goods were destroyed, the petitioner would bear the loss.