Exhibits A 3 and A 4 are specimens of the agreement and the delivery orders respectively.
Before the date of delivery, the appellants entered into agreements with third parties, by which they charged something extra from the third parties and handed over to them the delivery orders, which were known as kutcha delivery orders.
Appeals from the order dated November 23, 1956, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad, in Tax Revision Cases Nos.
The High Court, however, granted certificates, on which these appeals have been filed.
They seem to have relied in the High Court upon the deci sions of this Court reported in The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit v. Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash 1 and Poppatlal Shah v. The State of Madras 2 to show that these transactions were number sales.
6 of 1951 , but were again unsuccessful.
The Mills used to deliver the goods against the kutcha delivery orders along with an invoice and a bill, of which Exs.
The companytentions of the appellants are that the agreement and the delivery of the kutcha delivery order did number amount to a sale of goods, but was only an assignment of a right to obtain delivery of the gunnies, which were number in existence at the time of the transaction with third parties, and were number appropriated to the companytract, or, in the alternative, that this was only an assignment of a forward companytract.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
223 and 224 of 1960.
The tax authorities, however, treated the transaction between the appellants and third parties as a fresh sale, and sought to levy sales tax on it again, which, the appellants, companytended, was number demandable, as there was numbersecond sale.
The appellants failed in their companytentions before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, and their appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur and the Andhra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guntur, were unsuccessful.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and T. V. B. Tatachari, for the appellants.
The appellants then went up in revision to the High Court under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 as amended by Madras Act No.
17 and 18 of 1956.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
A 6 and A 7 are specimens respectively, and companylected the sales tax from the third parties.
Exhibits A 2 and A 2 a are specimen agreements of this kind.
Exhibit A 1 is a specimen of such companytracts.
The Mills, however, did number accept the third parties as companytracting parties but only as agents of the appellants.
The procedure followed by the appellants was this They first entered into companytracts with the Mills agreeing to purchase gunnies at a certain rate for future delivery.
The appellants also entered into agreements with the Mills, by which the Mills agreed to deliver the goods to third parties if requested by the appellants.
December 14.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. These are two appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against a companymon judgment in a sales tax revision filed by the appellants in the High Court.
The facts are as follows In the year 1952 53, for which the assessment of sales tax was in question, the appellants dealt in gunnies, and purchased them from two Mills in Vishakapatnam District and in respect of which they issued delivery orders to third parties, with whom they had entered into separate transactions.
