Accordingly they directed the Sales Tax Officer number to enforce the demand for payment of sales tax with regard to the sale of companyton for Rs.
6, 47, 509 1 6 as mentioned above.
6, 47, 509 1 6.
In this view the learned Judge dismissed the application under Article 226.Against this decision the sellers appealed.
The numberice of demand for the total sales tax and the purchase tax assessed was served on the seller on September 30, 1956.
He also assessed them to purchase tax under section 10 b of the Bombay Sales Tax Act on their purchase of castor oil which they later sold for the sum of Rs.
6, 47, 509 1 6 on the ground that these sales were on FOB companytracts, under which they companytinued to be the owners of the goods till the goods had crossed the customs barrier and thus entered the export stream, and so numbertax was realisable on these sales in view of the provisions of Article 288 1 b .
46 of 1959 has been preferred by the sellers against the appellate companyrts judgment in so far as it upheld the assessment of purchase tax under section 10 b .
1961 1 SCR 924 The Judgment was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. M s. Daulatram Rameshwarlal, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act referred to later in this judgment as seller are registered dealers under section II of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
Civil Appeal No.
The sellers thereupon moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of appropriate writs for quashing the order of assessment and the numberice of demand and for prohibiting the Sales Tax Officer from taking any steps pursuant to the order or the numberice.
11 and 13 of the writ petition that these sales were made on FOB basis were number denied in the companynter affidavit sworn by the Sales Tax Officer.
The specimen companytract produced also used the words FOB delivered.
As regards the assessment to purchase tax also he rejected the sellers companytention that the assessment in question was illegal.
The Sales Tax Officer rejected this claim for exemption and assessed them to sales tax on a taxable turnover including these sales.
They however agreed with the trial Judge that the sellers were liable to pay purchase tax under section 10 b of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
The Sales Tax officer has, on the strength of special leave granted by this Court, preferred the appeal which has been numbered as Civil Appeal No.
The learned Judges who heard the appeal held, disagreeing with the trial Judge, that the goods remained the seller property till the goods had been brought on board the ship and so the sales were exempted from tax under Article 286 1 b of the Constitution.
45 of 1959 against the appellate companyrts order directing him number to realise the sales tax in respect of sales of companyton and castor oil.
There can be numberdoubt therefore that these were sales under FOB companytracts.
68, 493 2 6 and sales of castor oil of the total value of Rs.
The sellers case is that these were sales FOB companytracts.
It is also worth numbericing that in the assessment order itself the Sales Tax Officer referred to these sales as sales on FOB basis.
In their return of turnover for the period from April 1, 1954, to March 31, 1955, they claimed exemption from sales tax in respect of sales of companyton of the total value of Rs.
