V 26th 18th August, 19th August, Payment made to the July, 1954.
Tons 5/6th 5/6th 15/6th Letter of Credit opened June, 954.
the Bills of Lacling duly endorsed in favour of the Government of India, Ministry of Food Agriculture Agriculture to the above goods together with other papers such as Certificates and instructed the said Bankers to present the same to the Government of India and companylect the said amounts of Rs.
For the assessment year 1954 55 i.e., April 1, 1954 to March 31, 1955, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Licence Circle, Division 1, Bombay.
50,43, 501 8 0, Rs.
10th 31st July, 31st July, Date of Sailing of vessel July, 954.
50,43,5o1 8 o, Rs.
Pursuant to that order, the second respondent issued a numberice dated February 14, 1959.
The companyresponding details pertaining to the second companytract are as follows Vessel Vessel vassel S. Eleni S. S. S. S. Inger Stathatos Giovanni Marie Amendola II.
26 th June 1954 Date of arrival of S. S. Alba at Bombay harbour.
The petitioner companytended before the first respondent that the numberice should have been issued, if at all, under s. 15 and number under s. 31 of the Act inasmuch as the sales had been disclosed to the Sales Tax Officer and the deduction of the same had been allowed by him.
1954 1954.
We do number see how these two facts indicate the companytrary intention.
In calculating the turn over of the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer deducted the price of the said two sales from the petitioners turn over.
Ministry of Food Agriculture Agriculture to the above goods together with other papers such as Certificates and instructed the said Bankers to present the same to the Government of India, and to companylect the said amount of Rs.
1 9910 858 9919 7158 4464 3I5 Total 24292 8888 Tons Tons.
June, 1954 by petitioner.
To fulfil the terms of the companytracts, the petitioner placed order with dealers in foreign companyntries.
The petitioner delivered to its Bankers, the Bank of Baroda Limited, Bombay, along with its invoices for Rs.
The material facts are number in dispute and they may be briefly stated The petitioner is a private companypany within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Kasturi Buildings, Bombay 1 on March 24, 1954 and April 15, 1954, into two companytracts with the Government of India for selling to the latter two companysignements of sugar one of 9500 Long Tons of sugar of Peruvian orgin and the other of 25000 metrice Tons of sugar of companytinental origin.
A. Palkhivala and I. N. Shroff, for Interveners Nos.
it was also pleaded that in any event the sales had taken place in the companyrse of import and therefore they were number liable to sales tax.
4 Attorney General for India .
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
January 25.
June, 1954.
3rd May, 1954 S. S. Alba sails from Salaverry Peru carrying 9782.01688 Long Tons of sugar.
petitioners Bankers by .the Government of India against delivery of Invoices and Bills of Lading.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and T.M. Sen, for intervener No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
32 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the first respondent dated February 9, 1959, setting aside the order of the second respondent allowing a deduction of an amount of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, T. This is a petition under Art.
1 to 3 The Bombay Chamber of Commerce Industry, Bombay and others .
26th May, 1954 The petitioner delivered to its Bankers, the Central Bank ofIndia Limited, Bombay, along with the invoice for Rs.
22, 69,800 13 0, Rs.
the Bills of Lading duly endorsed in favour of the Government of India.,
On January 31, 1958, the first respondent, the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, issued a numberice to the petitioner under s. 31 of the Act proposing to review the said assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer.
38 of 1959.
50,35, 405 11 0 the Documents of Title viz.
50,38, 997 14 o respectively the Documents of Title viz.
Purshottam Tricumdas, and 1.
50,35,405 11 0 from the Deputy Accountant General Food Rehabilitation ,New Delhi 7th June 1954 Payment made to petitioners Bankers by the Government ofIndia against delivery of Invoice and Bills of Lading.
In due companyrse the petitioner filed objections and made his representations.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathi Iyer and H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
The following are the particulars relating to the first companytract dated March 24, 1954, for the supply of 9500 Long Tons of sugar 3rd April Letter of Credit opened by the petitioner.
The first respondent rejected both the companytentions and held that sales tax was payable in respect of the said two transactions.
50,38, 997 14 0, from the Deputy Accountant General Food Rehabilitation New Delhi.
1,86,42,730 15 0 from the Petitioners sales tax turnover on the ground that the said amount was number liable to tax by virtue of s. 46 of the bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 Act III of 1953 , hereinafter called the Act .
Indeed after the goods reached the port, they were unloaded, taken delivery of, and cleared by the Government of India after paying the requisite customs duties to the authorities companycerned.
N. Shroff, for the Petitioner.
V1 12th 3rd Septem 9th Septem August 1954.
Date of arrival of Vessel at Bombay Harbour.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari cancelling the demand numberice issued by the second respondent.
The foregoing particulars disclose that some weeks before the vessel arrived at the Bombay harbour, i.e., when the vessels were on the high seas, the Government of India received the documents of title, including bills of lading, pertaining to the sugar purchased by them and paid the price to the petitioner.
1954, Vessel Vessel Vessel S. Eleni S. S. S. S. Inger Stathatos Giovanni Marie Amendola 1V 22nd 12th August,16th August,July, 1954.
He reassessed the petitioner to a total amount of sales tax and general tax of Rs.10,22,850 12 0 less Rs.
22,69, 800 13 o and Rs.
315 3 0 already paid by the petitioner, i.e., a sum of Rs.
10,22,535 9 0 and directed the second respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, to issue a numberice of demand for the said amount.
