286 of the Constitution, prohibited from imposing tax on transactions of supply of companyl outside the limits of the State under orders of the Coal Commissioner.
The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad, admitted the claim of the Company for the years 1954 55 and 1955 56 for exemption from liability.
The claim of the Company for the year 1956 57 was however rejected.
The Company appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and to the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the order of assessment for the year 195657, but without success.
1 2 of 1961.
The Company then applied to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its revisional jurisdiction, and submitted in support of its claim that a part of its turnover was exempt from liability to sales tax under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act because the turnover was in respect of sales, a which had taken place outside the State within the meaning of Art.
Appeals from the judgment dated the November 15, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T.R.C. No.
A. Palkhivala, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, P. L. Vohra and Mohinder Narain, for the appellant.
286 1 a read with the Explanation thereto, and b which were effected in the companyrse of inter State trade or companymerce, and the Parliament had number by law removed the ban against imposition of tax on such sales by the State Legislature.
Munikanniah and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the respondents.
At the material time, by s. 2 k of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, the expression sale was defined as under Sale with all its grammatical variations and companynate expressions means every transfer of property in goods by one person to another in the companyrse of trade of business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable company sideration and includes also a transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works companytract, but does number include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge.
Adhikari, Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh and I. N. Shroff, for intervener number 1.
The High Court rejected these companytentions.
950 952 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The question which falls to be determined in these appeals is whether the appellant Company is liable to pay sales tax assessed under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950 on the price of companyl supplied to allottees outside the taxing State pursuant to directions of the Coal Commissioner issued under the Colliery Control Order, 1945.
1,75,67,286/1/2 in the year 1954 55, Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
In the meanwhile the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued numberices to the Company to show cause why the orders of assessment for the years 1954 55 and 1955 56 should number be reopened and why the sales which were exempted by the.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General and R. N. Sachthey, for inter intervener number 5.
order of the Commercial Tax Officer should number be charged to tax, and by his orders respectively dated February 8, 1961 and November 16, 1960 for the two years 1954 55 and 1955 56 brought to tax the turnover which was previously treated as exempt.
A. Palkhivala, A. P. Sen, R. K. P. Shankardas, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for intervener number 3.
The High Court rejected these companytentions.
The orders were carried to the High Court in appeal and the same grounds which were set up in the revision application relating to the assessment year 1956 57 were set up, beside the ground that the action for reopening the assessments by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was barred by limitation and was therefore incompetent.
The Company claimed that Rs.
With certificate granted by the High Court, these appeals are preferred by the Company.
C. Setalvad, N. A. Palkhivala, A. P. Sen, R. K. P. Shankardass, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for intervener number 2.
1,55,18,937/6/5 in the year 1956 57 were number liable to be included in the taxable turnover for levying sales tax under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, because the State Legislature which enacted that Act was, by Art.
The Company which has its registered office at Hyderabad in the former Part B State of Hyderabad, and number in the State of Andhra Pradesh, carried on the business of mining companyl from its companylieries and supplying it to companysumers within and outside the State of Hyderabad.
B. Dadachanji, for intervener number 4.
These appeals relate to three financial years 1954 55, 1955 56 and 1956 57, during which companyl was a companytrolled companymodity, and its disposal and use companyld be made only under orders issued by the appropriate authority under the Colliery Control Order, 1945.
17 of 1960 and dated the July 25, 1961 in Special Appeals Nos.
1,17,39,636/11/8 in the year 1955 56, and Rs.
