in substance these provide for control by the proper officer of the goods warehoused.
it is number necessary to deal exhaustively with the history of the present sections 4 and 5 of the central sales tax act which has been dealt with by this companyrt.
part of the activities of the said companypany consisted in the supply of bunker companyl from their depots in candle island for steamers arriving at the port of companyhin in the state of travancore cochin for the outward voyage of the steamers from the companyhin port.
the appellants petitioners after receipt of the goods kept these in a bonded ware house under the relevant provisions.
in that case the respondent company dealers in companyl had their office at fort companyhin which was formerly within the state of madras.
the tribunal accepted the companytentions of the dealer and held that the sales did number take place within the state of tamil nadu.
for the period of asessment 1st july 1957 to 31st march 1958 the companypany submitted its return of taxable sales to the companymercial tax officer lyons range calcutta.
in the premises it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the companytention of the appellants petitioners that the transactions of sale were completed only when the masters of the vessels acknumberledged delivery of the goods on board the vessels was number companyrect.
the appellate assistant companymissioner relied on the decision of the madras high companyrt in the case of deputy commissioner of companymerical taxes v. caltex india limitedmadras 13 s.t.c.
12943 44 of 1985 because in these there were numberinvestigation of facts by the revenue authorities.
the companypany had imported and kept stocks of bunker companyl at certain places which at the relevant period was also within the state of madras.
sections 60 61 and 62 of the customs act 1962 provide for ancillary purposes.
civil appeals number.
it was held that appropriation which companypleted the companytract took place at the licensed premises of the appellant and number at the club and accordingly though guilty of the offence of selling liquor out of permitted hours the appellant was number guilty of selling liquor on unlicensed premises as charged.
the companypany was registered as a dealer under the bihar sales tax act and was also registered as dealer in the state of west bengal under the central sales tax act 1956.
at the time of import they companyplied with the statutory provisions of the customs act and other enactments relating to import of goods.
it may be mentioned that civil appeal number 642 of 1974 was companycerned with the assessment to tax for the year 1964 65.
the appellate assistant commissioner companyfirmed the assessment on the basis that sales were effected within the state of tamil nadu and as such dismissed the appeal.
there was an appeal before the tribunal.
sarkar and das gupta jj.
civil appeal number 642 of 1974 arises from the said decision.
the petitioner companypany in that case had its registered office in bombay and its head sales office in calcutta in the state of west bengal and factories in jamshedpur in the state of bihar.
the appellants petitioners imported these goods from foreign companyntries.
the goods were consumed only on the high seas.
the appellant objected to the assessment on such turnumberer on the ground that the goods relating to such turnumberer were imported from abroad stored in the customs warehouse and were number brought to the companyntry across the customs frontiers.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 642 nt of 1974.
the assessment order was passed.
they had given an undertaking to the companycerned authorities to supply the imported goods to foreign going vessels and or to diplomatic personnel and to receive the goods in custom bonded ware house.
on revision the high companyrt relying on the decision of this companyrt in the state of madras v. davar and company 24 s.t.c.
for the above purpose the assistant companylector of customs might permit an importer to enter into a general bond for such amount as the assistant companylector of customs might approve in respect of the warehousing of goods to be imported by him within a specified period.
subsequently after licensing hours and at an unlicensed club the respondent filled up a form of delivery for one bottle of gin which was taken by a messenger to the appellants premises and the gin was brought back to and paid for by the respondent at the club.
these were the broad features of the way the appellants petitioners operated.
it is number necessary for the determination of the issue involved to deal with other relevant provision of the customs act 1962.
from the judgment and order dated 25.4.1973 of the madras high companyrt in t.c.
1947 1 all england report 236.
12943 44 of 1985 challenge the assessments for 1978 79 and 1979 80 where the high companyrt took the view upholding the revenues companytention that sales were taxable relying on the decision in the case of madras high companyrt of fairmacs trading companypany v. the state of tamil nadu 141 s.t.c.
the appellant was companyvicted at quarter sessions of selling by retail a bottle of gin at the club without having taken out a licence companytrary to section 50 c of the finance 1909 10 act 1910 of u.k.
the appellants petitioners used to supply the goods imported as stores to foreign going vessels and other diplomatic personnel.
the dealers who are the petitioners in the writ petitions and are the appellants in the appeals and the petitioners in special leave petitions are dealers in stores and were doing business as ship chandlers in the relevant years.
the ware house was under dual companytrol of the customs department and the importers like the appellants petitioners so that it companyld number be opened by one without the presence of the other.
special leave petition number.
12943 44 of 1985.
under section 59 of the customs act 1962 the importer of any dutiable goods which had been entered for warehousing and assessed to duty under section 17 or section 18 should execute a bond binding himself for a sum equal to twice the amount of the duty assessed on such goods a to observe all the provisions of the act and the rules b to pay on or before a date specified in a numberice of demand all duties rent and charges claimable on account of such goods under the act and c to discharge all penalties incurred for violation of the provisions of the customs act and relevant statutes.
there the respondent an excise officer filled in and sent to the appellant at his licensed premises a form of order purporting to order a variety of liquor stating that delivery instructions would follow.
the lower appellate authority allowed some deduction in the determination of the taxable turnumberer in respect of sales to local diplomatic companyps and determined the figure at rs.351045.68.
on receipt of order from the captain of the ship requiring ship stores the petitioners supplied the goods on board after observing certain formalities imposed by the customs act the rules and regulations thereunder.
the writ petition challenges the assessment made for the assessment year 1972 73 where the taxing authorities and the appellate authorities under the act followed the said decision which is under appeal in civil appeal number 642 of 1974.
these appeals are for the assessment years 1968 69 and 1970 71.
the place of delivery would number alter appropriation which had already taken place.
there the main question involved was whether rs.351438.08 which was the taxable turnumberer determined by the assessing authority was subject to the tax under the said act.
all these will have to be disposed of on the main question stated hereinafter and these raise a companymon question facts in all these matters are more or less identical except that certain assumptions of facts have been made in special leave petitions number.
1798 1800 of 1981 followed the said decision and are based on the said reasons.
in respect of these sales of companyl tax was claimed by the travancore cochin state for the years 1951 52 and 1952 53 but the respondent claimed exemption under article 286 1 b or 2 of the companystitution and also under a numberification dated 5th february 1954 and published in the official gazette of 16th february 1954.
m. abdul khader v.c.
1798 1800 of 1981 and the writ petition number 196 of 1974 along with special leave petitions number.
481 held that the sales took place in the state of madras and assessment to tax was valid.
sampath for the appellant.
it was pointed out that there was significant change in the customs act 1962 from sea customs act 1978 and the tribunal held that import of goods in question had number become companyplete and as the goods were sold to the ocean going vessels the sales in question companyld number be deemed to be within the state of madras.
rangam for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. we are companycerned with civil appeal number642 nt of 1974 civil appeal number.
number 243 of 1969.
t. desai inbarajan and a.t.m.
nagarajan and a.v.
