In answer to this a companynter affidavit was filed by the sales tax officer who said The numberification referred to in the petitioners affidavit has numberapplication to the case as the sales in question did number companye within their orbit .
They, however, granted a certificate under Art.
They import and keep stocks of bunker companyl stacked at a place called Candle Island which at the date relevant to these proceedings was also within the State of Madras.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 10th September, 1956, of the former Travancore Cochin in Original Petition No.
In other words, the objection was number that the numberification was number a statutory exercise of the power under s. 6 1 and effective to grant an exemption to the cases companyered by it, but that the transactions of the respondent company were number companyered by the numberification.
The assessment years with which this appeal is companycerned are 1951 52 and 1952 53, and the assessment therefore was companypleted on February 2, 1954, by the sales tax officer, Circle, Mattancherry.
287 of 1958.
The price of the companyl would thereafter be paid to the respondent company on bills drawn on the steamer agent.
The companypany have their offices at a place called Fort Cochin which was formerly within the State of Madras.
The above being the nature of the transactions companyducted by the respondent company, sales tax was claimed on the sales of bunker companyl by the Travancore Cochin State.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As soon as a steamer arrived in Cochin port, the steamer agents would inform the respondent company and these agents after securing the necessary papers from the customs and the port authorities for the loading of the companyl into the steamer, would take these papers to the respondent companys office in Fort Cochin for enabling the latter to perform their part of the companytract.
The usual procedure by which bunker companyl was thus supplied by the respondent companypany was briefly this Before the arrival of the steamers, the steamer agents would enter into companytracts with the respondent companypany for trimming companyl into the bunker of the steamer.
191 of 1955.
The companymodity, the sales of which have given rise to the dispute in this appeal is what is known as Bunker companyl.
P. Abraham, P. George, and M.R. Krishna Pillai, for the Respondent.
Sardar Bahadur, for the Appellants.
October 31.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Travancore Cochin on a certificate of fitness granted by it under Art.
Part of the activities of the respondent company companysist in the supply of bunker companyl from their depots in Candle Island to steamers arriving in or calling at, the port of Cochin in the State of Travancore Cochin for the outward voyage of the steamers from the said port.
The Cochin Coal Company Ltd. which will be referred to as the respondent Company are, as their name indicates, dealers in companyl.
