816 in W.P. No.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1111 OF 1977 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 17 7 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No.
856A .
236 OF 1976 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Orders dated the 18th December 1975 of the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
40, Delhi, for the year 1971 72 .
Some of the appears are brought by special leave directly from the orders of the assessing authority and some others from the appellate or Previsional orders.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The reason why the appellants companytinued to have the old certificate of registration in the unamended form was that though section 5 2 a ii was amended, numbercorresponding amendment was made in the form of the certificate of registration until 29th September, 1961 long after the expiration of the relevant assessment year.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
AND WRIT PETITIONS NOS.
of Sales Tax, New Delhi in Appeal No.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
665 of 1976 77 .
These are the relevant provisions of the Act in the light of which we have to decide the question of law arising in the appeals.
1352, 1085 1110 Arjun Anand for J. B. Dadachanji Co. for the appellants in CAS.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
the 31 1 1977 of the Additional Commr.
The view taken in the orders impugned in the appeals and accepted by the High Court of Delhi in Fitwell Engineers case was that for the purpose of section 5 2 a ii and the Second Proviso, resale of the goods purchased was companyfined to resale inside Delhi and so also, use of the goods purchased as raw materials in the manufacture of goods and sale, of manufactured goods were required to be inside Delhi, and, therefore, if the assessees resold the .goods outside Delhi or used them as, raw materials in manufacture outside Delhi, or even if the manufacture was inside Delhi, sold the goods manufactured, outside Delhi, there was utilisation of the goods by the assessees for a purpose other than that for which they were purchased and hence the, Second Proviso to section 5 2 a was attracted and the price of the goods purchased was liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessees.
Special leave was granted in these cases without requiring the assessees to exhaust their remedies under the Act and to approach the High Court of Delhi in the first instance, because a decision was already given by the High Court of Delhi on 26th April, 1974 in Fitwell Engineers v. Financial Commissioner of Delhi negativing the companytentions of the assessees.
S. Chatterjee, D. P. Mukherjee A. K. Ganguli for the Petitioners in SLPs 2522 2524.
The assessees in all the appeals are registered dealers and during the relevant assessment periods they held certificates of registration specifying the class or classes of goods intended for resale by them or for use by them as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale.
1290, 1111, 1085, 1352, 1110 1526.
in the Union Territory of Delhi, of goods for sale.
valid from and are required by me us for 8 211 sci/78 re sale for use as raw material, in the manufacture in Delhi in accordance with the provisions companytained in section 5 2 a ii of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 as in force.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1290, 1352, 816 II 10 , R. C. Chawla in 1290 W.P. 166 CA 18/75 R. N. Sachthey and A. Subhashini for the respondents in C.A. Nos.
divided for the sake of companyvenience.
One group companysists of appeals where the assessees purchased goods of the class specified in the certificate of registration as being intended for resale by them and furnished to the dealers selling the goods declarations in the prescribed form, as it stood prior to 29th March, 1973, stating that the goods were intended for resale and thereafter resold the goods, though number within the territory of Delhi, while the other companysists of appeals where the assessees purchased goods of the class specified in the certificate of registration as being intended for use by them as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale and furnished to the dealers selling the goods declarations in the prescribed form, as it stood prior to 29th March, 1973, stating that the goods were purchased by them for use as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale and thereafter used the goods purchased as law materials in the manufacture of goods, in some cases outside Delhi and in some others inside, but in the latter, sold the goods so manufactured outside Delhi.
Similarly, the form of declaration to be furnished by the purchasing dealer in order to entitle, the dealer who has sold the goods to claim deduction of the amount in respect of such sales under section 5 2 ii , which was prescribed by Rule 26, was also number amended until 29th March, 1973 and it companytinued to be in the following terms Certified that the goods mentioned in the cash memo Bill No dated have been purchased by me us from M s. and are duly companyered by our Registration Certificate No.
The certificates of registration were in the form as it stood prior to its amendment on 29th March, 1973 and they did number specify that the resale of the goods purchased or their use as raw materials in the manufacture of goods, or the sale of manufactured goods should be inside Delhi.
1522 OF 1974 From the Judgment and Order dated the 26th April, 1974 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1352 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 30th April, 1977 of the Sales Tax Office at New Delhi .
1110 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd March, 1977 of the Sales Tax Officer at New Delhi in R.C. No 13754 .
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
40, Delhi for the assessment year 1973 74 in Order No.
343 of 1975 .
Commr.
2667 dated the 6th September, 1974 of the Sales tax Officer, Assessing Authority, Ward No.
1426 of 1973 .
947 of 1973 .
2522 2524 OF 1977 S. Nariman in CA 1290, 1085 1352 A. K. Sen in 1111 , S. T. Desai in 1110 , Ravinder Narain, Talat Ansari Balram Saingal in CA 1290 1 1 1 1 , Shri Narain in CAs.
Appeal by Special leave from the Order dated.
This was in companyformity with the requirement of section 5 2 a ii as it stood prior to its amendment and though section 5 2 a ii was substituted by the Finance Act of 19 72, numberamendment was made in the form of the certificate of registration and it was only on 29th March, 1973 that clause 3 of the form of the certificate of registration was substituted so as to declare that the sales of the specified goods to the dealer will be free of tax when they are for use as raw materials in the manufacture in the Union territory of Delhi of goods for sale in the, manner specified in section 5 2 a ii or for resale.
1526 of 1972, 1085 of 1977, and 1352 of 1977 are illustrative of the appeals belonging to the second group.
dated and are required by me us for, re sale for use as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale for use in the execution of companytract.
1290, 1111, 1085,1352, 1110, 236, 456, 816 of 1976, 18 of 1975, 1522 1526/74, W.P. Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. These appeals raise a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 5 2 a ii of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi hereinafter, for the sake of companyvenience referred to as Delhi .
of import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India.
There are broadly two groups in which the appeals can be.
8945 of 1975 76 .
Civil Appeals Nos.
dated have been purchased by me us from M s. and are duly companyered by me our registration certificate No.
of Sales Tax New Delhi in Appeal No.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
We also set aside the order passed by the assessing authority imposing penalty of Rs.
Signature Dealer It was only on 29th March, 1973 that the form of the declaration was substituted by amending Rule 26 so as to bring it in line with the amended section 5 2 a ii and after the substitution it ran as follows Certified that the goods mentioned in the Cash Memo Bill No.
Sardar Bahadur Bishnu Bahadur Saharya for the appellant in CA 1522 of 1974.
two lakhs on the assessees in Civil Appeal No.
1290 of 1977.
This section was obviously introduced with a view to bring the Act into companyformity with Article 286 of the Constitution.
The respondent will pay the companyts of the appellants petitioners in each appeal and writ petition.816 OF 1976 Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the 30th June 1976 of the Addl.
Signature Dealer The Act as originally enacted ended with Section 26 but by Amending Act of 1959, Section 27 was introduced in the Act with effect from 1st October, 1959 and this section provided that numberhing in the Act or under the rules shall be deemed to impose or authorise the imposition of a tax on any sale or purchase of any goods, if such sale or purchase takes place in the companyrse of Inter state trade or companymerce outside the Union territory of Delhi, or in the companyrse.
2522 2524/77.
This argument was, however, rejected by a bench of five Judges of this Court on the ground that it was number right to read the certificate of registration by itself but that sections 5 and 7 have to be read with Rule 26 and Form S.T. XXII, the declaration and so read, the old registration certicate, even though it did number companytain the words in the State of Punjab would stand impliedly modified by the sections and the Rule and Form ST.
329/75.
18 OF 1975 Appeal by Special Leave from the Assessment Order No.
1526 OF 1974 From the Judgment and Order dated the 26th April, 1974 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
B. Rohatgi M. K. Garg for the petitioners in W.P. No.
166/77 329 OF 1975 WITH SLPs.
Shyamala Pappu, J. Ramamurthi R. Vaigai in CAs.
1110 of 1977, 1111 of 1977 and 1290 of 1977 are representative appeals belonging to the first group while Civil Appeals Nos.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
456 OF 1976 Appeal by the Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 16th September, 1975 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
V. Gupte Attorney General in CAs.
1085 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 30 3 1977 of the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi.
494 of 1975 .
Yogeshwar Prasad, Rani Arora Meera Bali for the appellant CAs.
236, 456/76 718 of 1975 for the appellants.
