On the basis of this judgment, respondent No.
The petitioner had been importing and supplying number ferrous metals to respondents 1, 2 and 3 during the last 19 years.
Any import of companyper by the established licence holders was to be distributed under the directions of the Controller of Nonferrous Metals.
The Pay and Accounts Officer, acting on Annexure P 1 deducted the amounts of sales tax paid by the respondents under all the old companytracts from the current bills which were submitted by the petit ioner to him.
Respondent No.
The Non Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958, was repealed.
The petitioner used to procure numberferrous metals from various companyntries and also from within the companyntry for fulfilling its companytracts with the Government of India through the DGSD.
The Government of India, in placing orders with the petitioner used to grant import licences in terms of the companytract.
In 1966, this Court held in K.G. Khosla and Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1 hereinafter.
2,35,130 01 being the amount paid by respondent No.
The petitioner, in order to effect supplies to the DGSD had to obtain additional import licence.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. These are petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution praying for issue of appropriate direction or order for the enforcement of the fundamental right of the petitioners under article 31 1 of the Constitution.
referred to as the Khosla Case, that the sale by Khosla Co. to DGSD in India of axle box bodies manufactured in Belgium by their principal occasioned the movement of goods in companyrse of import and sales tax was number exigible on the transaction in view of s. 5 2 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
The Scarce Industrial Materials Control Order, 1965 was also repealed on June 6, 1966.
Stocks of number ferrous metals including incoming imports were thus frozen.
Annexure P 1 to all the authorities companycerned including respondent No.
2 issued an order.
Under the Import Trade Control Policy, the established importers including the petitioner obtained quota licences for import of number ferrous metals for the licensing period upto April, 1964 March, 1965, but the imports mentioned here were to be distributed only under the directions of the Controller of Non Ferrous Metals or the Import Trade Control Authority.
60,780/ from the bills which were pending payment and also threatened to recover Rs.
companytracts which had, already been executed.
4, namely, the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply directing that sales tax should number be allowed in respect of supply of stores which has been specifically imported against licences issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on the basis of Import Recommendation Certificates issued by the DGSD or other authorities like the State Trading Corporation for supplies against companytracts placed by the DGSD.
2 had agreed to pay and was paying the Central Sales Tax and or West Bengal Sales Tax whichever was applicable to the petitioner in terms of the companytract.
39 92 of 1969.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
The assessments on the petitioner upto the year ending October, 27, 1962, were companypleted prior to the date of judgment in Khosla Case and the issue of the order at Annexure P 1.
and also under the Import Trade Regulations, the established importers were number free to sell the metals imported by them against their quota licences even to the DGSD.
2 as sales tax in respect of 1 1966 3 S.C.R. 352.
Under the Non Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958.
On September 14, 1965, the Government of India promulgated the Scarce Industrial Materials Control Order, 1965, under the Defence of India Rules.
92/69 .
On April 2, 1958, the Government of India promulgated the Non Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958 under the Essential Commodities Act, 1951 by virtue of which free sale of companyper was banned.
92/69 .
M. Tarkunde, G.R. Chopra and C.M. Kohli for the petitioners.
5 6 in W. P No.
It is also a registered dealer in the State of West Bengal under the Bengal Finance Act, 1941 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
and is on the approved list of registered suppliers to the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, hereinafter referred to as DGSD.
Gobind Das and S. K. Nayar, for the respondents in W.P.No.
They, therefore, held that tax was exigible on the sales by the petitioner to the DGSD.
39/69 and respondents Nos.
The import of number ferrous metals was under Open General Licence till June 30, 1957.
The case of the petitioners before this Court was that the purchases at the export auctions were really sales by the Coffee Board in the companyrse of export of companyfee out of the territory of India since the sales themselves occasioned the export of Coffee and that the companyfee so sold was number intended for use in India or for sale in the Indian markets.
It has its registered office in Calcutta and a branch office at Binani House, Khundi Katra, Mirzapur, U.P. The petitioner is an importer and a dealer in number ferrous metals like zinc, lead, companyper, tin, etc.
1 4 in W.P. No.
The petitioner is a companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
Thereafter, a licensing systems was introduced by the Government of India and the established traders including M 602 Sup CI/74 the petitioner were asked to get their quotas fixed on the basis of their past imports.
K. Chatterjee and G.S. Chatterjee, for respondents Nos.
92 of 1969.
The petitioner, when it came to know of Annexure P 1 Order, approached the Sales Tax authorities in West Bengal and filed revised returns in the pending assessments and claimed refund of taxes paid on the sales, treating the sales as having been made in the companyrse of import on the basis of the judgment in Khosla Case.
The West Bengal Sales Tax authorities took the view that there were two sales involved in the transactions in question, namely, sale to the petitioner by the foreign sellers and sale by the petitioner to the DGSD, that there was numberprivity of companytract between the DGSD and the foreign sellers, that the petitioner, under the import licences granted to it, was entitled to import the goods from any person or companyntry and that the import licences issued as against the companytracts with the DGSD imposed numberobligation on the petitioner to supply the goods to the DGSD after they had been imported.
