Basappa appealed in all the three suits against the decision, of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool.
79,465/ took Place outside the Province and tax in respect of them at 1 which was the uniform rate applicable to all the three years was number demandable.
23 of 1949 for a declaration that the levy of Rs.
The Subordinate Judge held that.
The main points which were decided were 1 whether the suits were number maintainable as a the civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction and b the assessee had number exhausted his other remedies, 2 whether the suits were barred by time, and 3 whether the sales took place outside the Province of Madras and the levy of the tax in respect of some of the transactions was illegal.
the suits, which were governed by Art.
In O.S. No.
1 1955 2 S.C.R. 483.
5,370 7 0 in respect of O.S. No.
The High Court again companysidered categories 2 and 3 and held that sales companying under those categories were properly assessable to sales tax as the sales took place within the Province of Madras.
Appeal from the judgment and decrees dated March 12, 1957, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. Nos.
He claimed that these sales companyld number be included in his turnover under the Madras General Sales tax Act, 1939 Act No.
7,203 12 9 in respect of O.S. 14 of 1950 and Rs.
In this suit, in addition to thedefences also taken in the other suits it was companytended that, the suit was incompetent as a revision application was pending with the Board of Revenue.
44 of 1949 claiming a refund of Rs.
In O.S. 23 of 1949 he held that sales of the value of Rs.
ed at buyers risk and remained at buyers risk through out, it also companytended that the numberice under s. 80 was number proper and the suit was number in accordance with that numberice and was number maintainable because the orders under the Sales tax Act were made final by s. 11 4 of the Sales tax Act and because Basappa had number exhausted his other remedies under the Salestax Act.
The Subordinate Judge,, however, held that O.S. No.
In respect of this assessment, he filed O.S. No.
The High Court certified these cases and the present appeals have been filed.
14 of 1950 original No.
Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and others This request was number opposed and permission was granted to Basappa.
In the result, the appeals filed by Basappa were allowed and the cross objection filed by the Provincial Government of Madras was dismissed.
S. 40 of 1949 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool for refund of Rs.
The High Court differed from the Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation and held that neither s. 18 of the Sales tax Act number Art.
He claimed that the remaining sales took place outside the Province of Madras.
23 of 1949 was partially decreed with proportionate companyts.
The Madras State Government in a written statement traversed all the allegations and stated that delivery of the goods was made in Kurnool when the goods were booked and further that the goods were despatch.
9,23 3 6 7 was illegal and without jurisdiction and for a permanent injunction to restrain the taking authority from companylecting the tax.
A declaration to this effect was granted and an injunction was issued restraining the State Government from recovering Rs.
16 of the Indian Limitation Act.
Lastly, it companytended that the suit was barred by time number having been filed within six months from the date of the act companyplained of as required by s. 18 of the Sales tax Act or within one year as required by Art.
IX of 1939 and sales tax was wrongly demanded from him.
For the year 1944 45, Basappa was assessed to sales tax amounting to Rs.
62 of the Limitation Act was number applicable because Basappa had number pleaded in these two .suits that payment of the, tax was made under a mistake.
12,983 2 2 of which, according to him, a sum of Rs.
The Government of Madras objected in the appeal of Basappa from the.
23 of 1949 was in time.
494 496 of 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
11,389 0 9 ps.
They arise out of three suits filed by Basappa against the Provincial Government of Madras number represented by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the details of which are given below.
The State of Andhra Pradesh which number stands substituted for the Provincial Government of Madras is the appellant.
1,594 1 5 only represented sales within the Province.
The Subordinate Judge had held that sales tax was properly demandable in respect of categories 2 and 3 but number in respect of categories 1 and 4.
Bhimsankaram, Chander Kohli and E. Udayaratnam, for respondents.
The second part of the decision was number assailed before the High Court.
November 20, 1963.
The respondent is one J.S. Basappa, a groundnut oil merchant of Kurnool who was selling oil within the Province and also exported it to extra Provincial points.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, T.V.R. Tatachari and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the appellants.
16 of the Limitation Act was applicable to.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.
In respect of the year 1945 46, Basappa filed O.S. No.
566 to 568 of 1961.
494 to 496 of 1962.
These suits were disposed of by the Subordinate Judge,, Kurnool by a companymon judgment dated February 22, 1951.
44 of 1949 were wrongly levied,, because those amounts companycerned sales which took place outside the Province of Madras.
14 of 1 950 and 44 of 1949, he recorded findings that tax amounting to Rs.
He submitted that property in the goods remained with him till the export of the goods to an extraProvincial point and till payment of price after export.
8,356/on similar grounds, and in respect of the year 1946 47 he filed O.S. No.
