The appellant then on similar advice applied for and obtained requisite licences for the export of the said teas from the Joint Controller, Indian Tea Licensing Committee, and the said licences were all in the names of the said principals.
An appeal preferred against the order passed by Sinha, J., was dismissed by Chakravartti, C.J., and Lahiri, J. It is against this judgment that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
665 of 1957 1958 AIR SC 1006 The Judgment was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. Civil Appeal No.
Under instructions of the said principals, bills of lading for the said teas worth Rs.
It was on these findings that the appellants claim for exemption under section 5 2 a v of the Act as well as Article 286 1 b of the Constitution was rejected.
Thus the goods were shipped from Calcutta to destination outside the territories of India in the companyrse of foreign or international trade.
22, 41, 490 3 3, they had been dispatched by the appellant or on his behalf to an address outside West Bengal and were thus exempt from tax under section 5 2 a v of the Act.
It is against this appellate order that the present appeal has been brought to this Court by the appellant by special leave.
He claimed that goods worth Rs.
Mr. Justice D. N. Sinha who heard the petition rejected all the companytentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the petition.
On 15th November, 1949, a letter from the said Bombay party said Out of our purchased stock please make two blends according to the attached blend list and ship after packing and marking as directed in the list .
All the said teas carried export quota rights.
This order was challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal but Chakravartti, C.J., and Lahiri, J., who heard the appeal were number impressed by the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant.
After different kinds of teas were thus purchased they were mixed and repacked in accordance with the instructions of the principals.
The appellants case, however, was that the taxable turnover for the relevant period was nil.
Sinha, J., rejected the petition on two grounds.
The learned Judges of the Appellate Bench observed that the plea that the appellant was an agent was number seriously pressed before them and they held that the plea for exemption under Article 286 1 b was number well founded because the sales in which the appellant was interested were companypleted as soon as the goods were appropriated to his companytracts with the Bombay parties and whether subsequently the Bombay parties companysigned the goods to themselves at some place outside India or to other parties was numberconcern to the appellant.
He held that the return filed by the appellant was the foundation of the present assessment proceedings and since the return had number been filed on the footing of an agent, the appellants case that, it regard to the transactions in question, he was numbermore than an agent acting for his principals in Bombay cannot succeed.
In regard to the latter claim for exemption made by the appellant he alleged that, in his usual companyrse of business and on the advices of Shah Narottamdas Harjivandas Co., and two other well known tea exporters and tea merchants of Bombay, he had purchased at the tea auctions in Calcutta various quantities of teas as their agent and on their behalf and for the purpose of direct export to foreign companyntries.
The shipping to foreign ports of the goods thus sold was numberpart of the sale by the appellant to the Bombay parties it companystituted an event which is post sale.
The learned Judge also found that the sale of the goods by the appellant to the Bombay parties was companyplete when it was appropriated to the companytract billed for and the price realised.
It was this order of the appellate authority that was challenged by the appellant in his petition filed before the High Court at Calcutta.
Thereafter, in the usual companyrse of business, the appellant put the said teas into ships through clearing or shipping agents and the teas were bound for export overseas.
5, 74, 422 7 3 were made out in the names of the said principals as the companysignors and the companysignees were sometimes the principals themselves and sometimes foreign parties.
23, 905 11 0 for the year 1949 50 under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 Act VI of 1941 , hereinafter called the Act.
1, 79, 733 0 0 were sold to registered dealers and were thus exempt from tax under section 5 2 a ii of the Act.
In regard to the balance of goods worth Rs.
with Civil Appeal No.
The appellant Gordhandas Lalji had filed a petition in the High Court at Calcutta under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of assessment made by the respondents against him for Rs.
300 of 1956.
The appellant is a registered dealer under the Act.
As required by the Act, the appellant submitted his return for the year 1949 50 which showed that his turnover was Rs.
24, 21, 023 3 3.
