Dismissed

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd., and Another v. the Commercial Tax Officer and Others (and Connected Appeal)

Supreme Court27 Sept 19601960 INSC 165 · [1961] 1 S.C.R. 9021960 INSC 165

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sales tax on aviation spirit supplied by oil companies at Dum Dum Airport to aircraft flying abroad. Held the sales were within West Bengal, not 'Explanation sales' under Article 286(1)(a), and were not in the course of export since the spirit had no foreign destination where it could be imported. Appeals dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed with costs; one hearing fee.

What the court decided

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Supreme Court (1961)

¶1

, '

¶2

902 SUPREME COURT REPOHTS [ I9&I]

¶3

sub-s. (5) that "Income-tax Offic<•rs shall perform their functiorrn in respect of such persons ...... as the L. llu:an ,\Jal Kath1ulu CommiHioner ...... may ...... direct" <inly show that the , .. CommiAsioner mn.y direct that one Income-tax Officer J'Ju ftlC01Jlf·ltlX Ahall not and !!notlwr lncomr-t-Rx Cfficer sl1all, per- UfJictY, spctaJ form the functions in respect of such and such pnson Circlt, AmlnJ/ll Can!t. or per80lls. The plural i11cluding the singular, the order of thu Commissio11cr waH valid, becausu he arra11ged aud distrilrnted work, and <lid not- se"k to transfer any ca~e. It is, however, contemlcd that this renders suL-s. (7 A) otioso. In 01u· opi11iu11, it does nut. Special 1irovisiu11 for transfer of pe11ding <'ases is ·~JI that i". provided there, aud if ouch a transfer takes pla<'e, the proviBions of sub-s. (7A) will be invoked. Tho8P provisions are to be rllad as 11ut prejudicing the g<'11eral powers granted b) sub-s. (5) and vice versa.

¶4

¶5

For these reasons, tlie appeal fails, r.nd will ho dismissed with eusts.

¶6

Appeal dismi.ssed.

¶7

BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AN'D DISTRIBUTING CO., OF INDIA, LTD, AND ANOTHER

¶8

¶9

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFJ.<'JCER AND OTHERS

¶10

(A~D CONNECTgD APPEAL)

¶11

(S. K. DAS, M. HmAYATUI.LAn, K. C. Ihs GUPTA, J.C. SHAH and X. HAJAGOPALA AYYA:SOAR, ,JJ.)

¶12

Sales Tax-Sale of motor spirit for aviation purposes lo aircraft "' _Ai"rport-Exemption from taxation-Sale outside custu1ns barrier ---'J.t'hether salt u·itl1in State--A.viatio1i sp;rit loaded 011 board aircraft taken out of cotrnlry-lf exported-" J::xport ", meamng of -Bengal Motor Spint Sal<S Taxation Act, 1y41 (Beu. 5 of 1941), "22, as amcnded-Co11slitutio11 of hidia, Art 286(1)(a)(b). J::xplanation.

¶13

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶14

903

¶15

l'he apptllant companies which \Vere, carrying on, husiness J9tl•J in Calcutta in petroleum and petroleum products maintained -- . supply depots at Dum Dum Airport from which motor spirit for Bunnah .shell Oil the purposes of aviation was sold and delivered to aircraft which Storage and either proceeded to foreign countries directly from that Airport Distributing Co .• .• or did so ultimately. though landing en route at some place or of India India Ltd. places in the Indian territory. Dum Dum Airport was a customs v. aerodrome and all aircraft coming into it or leaving it had to Connnercial comply with ordinary customs formalities. The sales tax autho- .Tax Officer rities of West Bengal sought to levy tax on the sales of motor spirit as aforesaid under the provisions of the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation Act. 1941. as amended. The appellant companies claimed that the sales were exempted from taxation under both the clauses (a) and (b) of Art. 286(1) of the Constitution of India on the grounds (1) that the sales in question had taken place outside the State of West Bengal. as they did not come within the Explanation to Art. 286(1)(a). (2) that aviation spirit was delivered outside the customs barrier and therefore the sales were outside the State. and (3) that the sales had taken place in the course of export, as aviation spirit was taken out of the territory.of India.

¶16

Storage and Distributing Co .• .• of India India Ltd. v. Connnercial • .Tax Officer

¶17

Held: (r) that by sale in Art. 28li(1)(a) is meant a completed transaction by which property in the goods passes. Before property in the goods passes the contract of sale is only execu. tory aµd the buyer has only a chose in action. The taxable event is not to be found at an earlier stage because the critical taxable event is the passing of property.

¶18

The Explanation to cl. (1) of Art. 286 was added to avoid, among .other things. multiple taxation of the same transaction. It indicates the State where the tax can be levied and also the State where it cannot.· It achieves it by excluding from consideration the place where the property in the goods passed according to the law relating to sale of goods. The non obstanle . clause establishes this. By the fiction created hy the Explanation a sale is deemed lo have taken place in the State where the goods are delivered as a direct result of the sale for purposes of consumption in that State ..

¶19

Where there are more States than one involved; any State claiming to tax a sale by reason of something anterior to the passing of property would not be able to claim that the sale took place there unless it was also the State of delivery.

¶20

The Explanaiion is meant to explain the Article and must be interpreted according to its tenor and the Explanation is not to be explained with the aid of the Article because that would reverse their roles. The Explanation is not applicable unless there are more States than one involved.

¶21

The Stale of Boml1a;• v. The United Motors (India) Ltd .• (1953] S.C.R. 1069. State of Travancore Cochin v. Shan1n11gha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, (1954] S.C.R. 53, Ram11arainSons Ltd. v. Asst.

¶22

¶23

904 SUPRE;\IE COURT REPORTS (1961]

¶24

1960 Commissio•er of Sa/rs Tax, [1955) 2 S.C.R. 483 aJ1d Thr Bettgal Immunity Company Ltd. v. The Stale nf Bihar, · [1955] 2 S.C.R. Bu,,nah Shell 603, considered. Oils.to.age and (2) that to exclude the pawer of taxation of the State of Dul.,buung Co., West Bengal under Art. 286(1)(a), read with the Explanation, of India Lid. the appellant companies must he able to point out some other v. State where the goods could he said to have been delivered as a Com•nmial result of the sale for the purpose of consumption in that other Ta:z Offerer State, and that where, as in the present case, aviation spirit \'as delivererl to the aircraft, there "-'as no such rival State, and therefore, the han contained in Art. 286(1)(a) and the Explanation, did not apply.

¶25

(3) that in the phrase" in the course of expo1t out of the territory of India" in Art. 286(1)(b) the word" export" does not merely mean 'taking out of the country'. Export here means that the goods arc being sent to a foreign destination at which the goods can be said to be imported. In the Article the notions of import and export go in pairs.

¶26

Stale of Travancore-Cochin v. The Bombay Co. Ltd., [1952] S.C.R. 1112 and Stale of Trarancore-Corhin '" Sha11m11gh" Vilas Cashew Nut Factory, [1954] S.C.R. 53, relied on.

¶27

(4) that aviation spirit loaded on board the aircraft for consumption; though taken out of the country, was not exporte<l since ,it had no destination where it could be said to be importeci. The sales in question could not, therefore, be said to have oc.casioned the export, nor were they in the Course of export. Accordingly, Art. 286(1)(b) was not applicable.

¶28

(5) that the sales must be treated as made within the State of West Bengal. 'fhe customs barrier did not set a terminal limit to the territory of West Bengal for the purposes of sales tax, and the sales, though beyond the customs barrier, were still within the territory of the taxing State.

¶29

•

¶30

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 751of1957 and 10 of 1958.

¶31

Appeal from the judgment.and orde~ dated December 7, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court rn Matters Nos. 29 and 58 of 1956.

¶32

M. C. Setalvad, Attorney.General of India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Sukumar Mitra, Sankar Ghosh and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants in C. A. No 751 of 57.

¶33

M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, Sankar Ghosh and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants in C. A. No. 10 of 1958.

¶34

S. M. Bose, AdvO<:Ate.General for the State of W ut '

¶35

905

¶36

1. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶37

Bengal, B. Sen and P. K. Bose, for the respondents (in both the appeals).

¶38

Bumiah sh<ll Oil Storage and Distdbuting Co., of India Ltd. v. Commmial Tax Officer

¶39

September·27. The Judgment of the Court Oil Storage and was delivered by Distdbuting Co.,

¶40

¶41

HIDAYATULLAH J.-These two appeals on a certifiv. cate under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution have been Commmial filed respectively by the Burmah Shell Oil Storage Tax Officer and Distributing Co., of India, Ltd., and the Standard Vacuum .Oil Company (in this judgment referred to Hidayatullah J. as the appellant-Companies) against a common judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated December 7, 1956. The High Court was moved for writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari under Art. 226, but the petition was dismissed by D. N. Sinha, J. The matter arises out of assessment to sales tax on sale of motor spirit for aviation purposes (shortly, aviation spirit) supplied by the appellant-Companies to aircraft bound for countries abroad, under the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation Act, 1941, as amended by s. 2(a)(i) of the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation (Second Amendment) Act, 1954. The Commercial Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the State of West Bengal have been joined as respondents in this Court, as they had previously been joined in the High Court.

¶42

The app_ellant-Companies deal in Petroleum and Petroleum products, and carry on business at Calcutta. They maintain supply depots at Dum Dum Airport from which aviation spirit is sold and delivered to aircraft proceeding abroad and belonging to several Companies. It appears that such sales were treated by the sales tax authorities in the State of Bombay as not falling within the taxing Acts in force in the Bombay State by reason of the provisions of Art. 286 of the Constitution. The sales tax authorities in West Bengal, however, took a different view of· the matter, and after sundry .procedure resulting in assessment of tax, presented a demand notice for the tax assessed which was paid under protest by the appellant Companies. The a-ppcllant Companies filed p~ti tions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High

¶43

906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961)

¶44

, 1

¶45

'9'° Court of Calcutta questioning the lt1gality of tbe B h S^' 11 0^{_._imposit.ioubut without success.} The>y have now filed "'"'a stornge - "' ""d '¹ t l 1ese appea ] s a ft er o bt ammg ,. · a cert1 ca .fi t e, as A, l rea d y Distributing Co., stated. -..:,•! b•dia Ltd. The contentions in this Court, as they were also v. before tbe High Court, a-r~ that such sales are made Commmial Ta, in the cotfrse of export of such aviation spirit out of Officer t e h territory o f India, that t ey b take place outside Hidayaluilah .f. the State of West Bengal, that inasmuch as aviation spirit is delivered for cqnsumption outsicle West Bengal, the sales cannot fall within the Explanation to sub.cl. (a) of the first cla.use of Art. 286, and t.hat unless they can be s:iid t:o'become "Explanation Sales", the power to tax does not exist. It is argued in support of the last contention that there is not even an averment in the reply '1f the respondents before the· High Court that aviation spirit is delivered for consumption within 'Vest B.engal. The case in the High . Court was restricted to consideration of supplies to aircraft which eit.her proceed to foreign countries directly from Dum Dum Airport, or do so ultimately, though landing en route at some place or places in the Indian territory. The case has been similarly confined in this Court al"o, and we are not requirf.'d to <>xprcss any opinion about. sales of avit>tion spirit t.o aircraft flying from on<> place in West Bengal t.o another placo also wit.bin that State, or .even to some place in another State in the territory of India. The facts are fortunately not in dispute. Both parties admitted the procedure for the supply of .aviation spirit to aircraft. Briefly described, it js as follows : Before the arrival of such an aircraft, a representative of the appellant-Companies applies to the Airport Cu~toms Officer to depute an Officer to supervise the refuelling of the aircraft, After the aircraft lands, the captain or the Ground Engineer gives instruction about the quantity of aviation spirit required, and on permission being given by the Customs authorities, the stated quantity. is delivored in the presence of the Customs Officer deputed. D.etails of the delivery are entered in a delivery receipt, which

¶46

1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶47

907

¶48

•

¶49

is signed by the representative of the appellant Com- I96o panies and the Customs Officer deputed. Duty draw- 8 h-Sh 11 0 1 .1 back shipping bills are also drawn up to show the "~;·:,age :nd quantity of aviation spirit and are countersigned by Distributi11ff co., them and also by a representative of the aircraft. of India Ud. Later, claims for refund of customs duty are made, v. and refund is granted. , Commmial Tax Officer In the petition filed in the petition filed in petition filed in the High Court., High Court., it was aver-was averred that such aviation spirit is required for consump-such aviation spirit is required for consump- Hidayatullah J.

¶50

In the petition filed in the petition filed in petition filed in the High Court., High Court., it was aver-was averred that such aviation spirit is required for consump-such aviation spirit is required for consumption during flight and/or outside the territory of India, and is thus delivered for purposes of consumption outside West Bengal and in some cases outside the territorial limits of India as well. It was also stated that it was sold in the course of export outside the territory of India, and drawback of customs duty was obtained. In the reply of the respondents, it was stated that the refund of customs duty was an irrelevant fact for the purpose of assessment. It was further stated in the affidavit of the Commercial Tax Officer as follows :

¶51

" I further state that a foreign bound aircrnft on leaving Dum Dum Airport consumes a portion of the aviation spirit taken in by it at the Airport within the. territory of West Bengal· before it moves out of the said territory or the territory of India. I do not admit that the entire quantity is used outside the territorial limits of India as alleged ...... I deny that the sale of such aviation· spirit takes place outside the State of West Bengal and state that the sale takes place within the State of West Bengal and the purchaser pays its price within the State of West Bengal. The sale of such aviation spirit is completed by delivery at the Dum Dum Airport in West Bengal."

¶52

We have mentioned this fact, because it was argued that the respondents had not averred clearly that aviation spirit was sold for consumption within West Bengal even though the appellant Companies had denied it. The respondents pointed out that at least some of the aviation spirit must be consumed in the i::ltate, and that this was so stated in the affidavit filed in reply to the petition. and quoted by us. This is

¶53

908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶54

[1961]

¶55

' 9 ~

¶56

' 9 ~ hardly a case for a ught on pleadings, especially as liu'm•h-Shell 0 ,1 the entire procedure of the supply of aviation spirit Sto••c• and and the use to which it is put are beyond controversy. Di•tdb"""c Cn., The question that wo have to consider is one of 0 1 India Ltd. principle, and the answer depenJs upon broad facts v. and not on technicalities. Either the whole of the C01nmercial Tux sale is within the taxing pow1'r of the State or it is Officer not, and the fact that aviation spirit is cPnRumed i11 llidayatullah ;. taking off or in flying over the territory of West Bengal before it leaves that territory would make no differnnee either way to t.he p1·iaciples applicable. Though parties entered into a debate on this part of the case, we do uot propose to consider it, because, in our opinion, the que~tion must be considered in substance and not in abstractions. The liability to sales tax, if any, is attracted when aviation spirit is sold, and immunity can only be claimed, if, as stated in Art. 286(l)(a) and the Explanation, the sale can be said to take place outside the State or can be regarded under Art. 286(l)(b) as having taken place "in the course of ...... export of the goods out of, the territory of India".

¶57

Before we take up these two questions, we desire to refer to some provisions of certain Acts, which bear upon the matter. The Indian Aircraft Act, 1934, is an Act for the control of the manufacture, possession, use, operation, sale, import and export of aircraft. Section 16 of this Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any or all of the provisions of thl'l Sea Customs Acl shall, with such modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the notification, apply to the import and export of goods by air. Sections 2(3) and (4) define "import" and "export" reHpectively as "uriaging into India" and "taking out of India ". A notification issued under the Indian Aircraft Act, the rnles framed t hereuuder and the Indian Aircraft Rules, 1920, appointed the Civil Aerodrome, Dum Dum, a Customs Aerodrome, and to that Customs Aerodrome, the provisions of the Sea Customs Act mutatis mu.tandis were made applicable by r. 63 (Part IX) of the Indian Aircraft Rules, 1920. As

¶58

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶59

909

¶60

a result, Dum Dum Airport became a Customs Aeror96o drome, and any aircra'.t coming into India from Burmoh-Shell Oil foreign countries or leavmg for any such country has storage ond to comply with ordinary Customs formalities. Section Distributing co., 42 of the Sea Customs Act, which allows drawback on of Indio Ltd. re-export and is applicable mutatis mutandis, prov. vides·: Commercial Ta,;

¶61

r96o Burmoh-Shell Oil storage ond Distributing co., of Indio Ltd. v. Commercial Ta,; Officer

¶62

"When any goods, capable of being easily identi- Officer fied, which have been imported by sea into any Hidoyotulloh J. customs-port from any foreign port, and upon which duties of customs have been paid on importation,. are re-exported by sea from such customs-port to any foreign port, or as provisions or stores for use on board a ship proceeding to a foreign port sevei1eighths ...... of such duties shall, except as otherwise hereinafter provided, be repaid as drawback:". (Provisos omitted).

¶63

Under s. 51, no draw back is allowed unless the claim to receive such draw back is made and established at the time of re-export, and under s. 52, the person claiming drawback bas to make and subscribe to a declaration. The proceaure which is described in an earlier portion of this judgment bears upon these matters.

¶64

. Coming now to the taxing Acts with which we are concerned, it may be pointed out that the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation Act, 1941, originally did not contemplate levy of a tax on the sale of aviation spirit. Motor spirit was defined to mean,

¶65

"any liquid or admixture of liquids which is ordinarily used directly or indirectly as fuel for any form of motor vehicle or stationary internal combustion engine, and which has a flashing point below 76 degrees Fahrenheit".

¶66

Sub-section (4) of s. 3, which is the charging section, provided that no tax shal_l be levied on the sale of any motor spirit for the purpose of aviation. The Act was amended by the Second Amendment Act, 1954, and sub-s. (4) of s. 3 was omitted, and the proviso to the first sub-section was re-enacted, adding one more clause to the following effect :

¶67

II6

¶68

SVPREME COURT REPOJ~TS (1961]

¶69

!HO

¶70

1960 "the tax on all retail sales of motor spirit for the -- purpose of aviation, which are effected on or after the Bu,.nah Shell 0,/ f h f h B J f · J , 1 t,,agc a" d date o t e commencement S o t e enga :\ @tor Sp1- v.,111 1.uling co, rit Sales Taxation ( ccond Amendment) Act, 1954, of Ind'" Ltd shall br charged at the rate "f three 1rnnas per ,.. gallon ". c 0 '"""" 1"1 By the Bengal l\jotor Spirit Sales Taxation (Amend- Tax qfricet ment) Act, 1955, the original Act was further amend- //id•."""'"•h J. ed. To the definition of' motor spirit· quoted by us earlier, an Explanation was retrofipectivdy odded, which reads as follows :

¶71

•

¶72

¶73

"Explanation-For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that in this Act, the expression • vehicle' means any means of carriage, com·eyance or transport, by land, air or water".

¶74

The original Act was again amended by the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1957. This time; among other amendments involving rates of tax, the words "and which has a flashing point below 76 degrees Fahrenheit" were omitted from the definition of' motor spirit '. The result of all these amendments was to make retail sales of aviation spirit liable to sales tax, and 'retail sale' was defined, at all material times, as a sale " by a retail dealer for the purpose of consumption by .the purchaser".

¶75

After the coming into force of the Constitution, s. 22, in terms of Art. 286, was added to the original Act by paragraph 3 of, and the Eleventh Schedule to, the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. lt read :

¶76

"22(1). Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose or authorise the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of motor spirit :-

¶77

(a) whore the sale or purchase takes place outside the State of West Bengal;

¶78

(b) where the sale or purchase takes place in the course of the import of such motor spirit into, or export of such motor spirit out of the territory of India; or

¶79

¶80

(2) The Explanation to clause ( l) of article 286 of the Constitution shall apply for the interpretation of clause (a) of sub-section (1) ".

¶81

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶82

911

¶83

¶84

Clauses (a) and (b) of the first sub-section do no more 19 60 than re.enact the tirohibition contained in A~t. 286 of Burmah-Shell Oil the Constitution with modifications to smt motor Storage aud spirit, and the Explanation to sub-cl. (a) of cl. (1) of Distributing Co., the said Article in the Constitution has been applied of India Ltd, without an attempt to modify or adopt. it. The v. Exp 1 anat1011 . to su b l ( ) -c . a o t e f h fi rst c ause o l f A r . t Commercial Offi Tax 286, the meaning of which was much in dispute in "' ·this case, may conveniently be quoted here. It Hidayatullah J. reads:-

¶85

" Explanation--,-For the purposes of sub-clause (a), a sale or purchase shall be deemed 'to have taken place in the State in which the goods have actually been delivered as a direct result of such sale or purchase for the purpose of consumption in that State, notwithstanding the fact that under the general laws relating to sale of goods the property in the goods has by reason of such sale or purchase passed in another State".

¶86

The High Court of Calcutta in its judgmept dealt with the points urged, and rejected them. The reasons of the High Court briefly were as follows : The learned Judge declined to draw. any inference from the fact that customs duties were refunded as drawbacks on aviation spirit delivered to the aircraft. He held that he was not required to decide whether the appellant Companies were ·entitled t() claim and receive drawbacks of customs duty. He then gave a finding that the sale was physically within the State, because both the buyer and the purchaser were, at the time of sale, within the State of West Bengal, even though delivery of aviation spirit was beyond the customs barrier. He then considered the legal position in the light of Art. 286 fr.om three points of view. He first held that it was not an inter-State transaction, because both the parties were in the State of West Bengal, and aviation spirit was not delivered outside the State. Thus, he held that cl. (2) of Art. 286 did not apply. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the Bengal Immunity Co., Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others (1 ). He next considered

¶87

(I) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 6o3.

¶88

SUPREi'IIE COURT REPORTS

¶89

912

¶90

[ 1961]

¶91

1 960 tho matter under the first sub.cla.use, and held that liom,,ah Shell 0 ,1 unless the fiction cre,ted by ~ho. Ex pie.nation applied, Sto•age at1d the sale ust he treated as w1thm t.he Sa.~e under the Do.<trihutrng Co.,_ la.w rela.tmg to so.le of goods. In hrs opm10n, the so.le _of 1>1dra Ltd. being completed within the State of\'esf, Benge.I both v. a.s rt'ga.rds contract a.nd delivery, the fiction could not c0 "'"'"''"1 be held applica.hle, because no "outside" State was Tax O.ffice'Y involved, even though tho aircraft might have to con- llidayatullah J. sume some aviation spirit while flying over the" outside" State. He, therefore, held that. the Expla.na.tion a.nd Art. 286(1)(0.) which it seeks to explain, were both not a.pplica.ble. He then considered the matter from the point of view of Art. 286(l)(b). He explained on the authority of the decision of this Court in State of Travancore-Cochin. and others v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory and others(') that the expression "in the course of export out of the territory of India." referred to sales which, by themselves, occasioned tho export of goods out of the territory of India and not t-0 sales for the purpose of export, even though the goods ultimately passed the customs .barrier. Ho pointed out that there was no foreign purchaser to -whom the aviation spirit could be said to have been exported, and that aviation spirit, in fact, was consumed en route a.·nd never taken to any foreign territ-0ry. He also pointed out that no bills of la.ding or shipping documents were drawn up, and therefore there was neither a.n export nor a. sale in the course of export out of the territory of India..

¶92

The a.ppella.nt Companies claim that· these sales come within the exemption of both the sub-els. (a) and (b) of the first clause of Art. 286. To claim the <1xemption granted by the first sub-clause, they rely upon certain decisions of this Court, and contend that unless the so.le can be said t-0 fa.II within the Expla.natiori, it must be treated a.s a. sale outside the State of West Benge.I, a.nd is thus exempt. With regard to the second sub-clause, they contend that there was a.n export out of the territory of India. inasmuch a.s aviation spirit wa.s ta.ken a.broad a.nd a.ny sale by which it is takl'n a.broad is also exempt. These t•l [1954J s.c.R: 53.

¶93

913

¶94

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶95

¶96

11'

¶97

1 ?00

¶98

arguments, as has been shown above, were urged before the High Court, but were not accep'.ed. but were not accep'.ed. were not accep'.ed.

¶99

fore the High Court, but were not accep'.ed. but were not accep'.ed. were not accep'.ed. Burmah-Shell Oil These two arguments need to be considered separa- stoi·•K' and tely, as they have little iu common. Article 286 places Distributing Co,. restrictions upon the power of the States to tax sales of India Ltd. and purchase of goods, and cuts down the amplitude v._ . . h S d L" f h S th Commemal Ta• o f Entry N o. 54 m t e econ 1st o t e even. Offie;, Schedule. . Other restrictions are also to be found m Part XIII of the Constitution. With those we are not -Hidayatullah ]. concerned in these appeals. We are also not concerned with the subsequent amendment of Art. 286, nor with the ban imposed by the second clause of the Article on taxes on sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. We are concerned with the first clause only, as it stood before the amendme'nt. That clause is divided into two sub-clauses. The first sub-clause prohibits the imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods where the sale or purchase takes place outside the State. An Explanation is added to this sub- clause, which has been quoted by us earlier. This Explana. tion has led to a long controversy in this Court during which somewhat conflicting views have been expressed about its meaning. This conflict has further been accentuated when the interplay between the two clauses has been considered. The view now accep,ted is that the bans imposed by the two clauses are independent and separate and each must separately be got over. In view of this, we are not required to travel beyond the first clause in this case.

¶100

We have heard widely divergent arguments in these appeals. The learned Attorney-General who appeared on behalf of the appellant Companies read to us copious extracts from the earlier decisions of this Court, and contended that unless the sales could be said to fall within the Explanation so as to become 'Explanation sales', they must be regarded as having taken place outside the State of West Bengal and for that reason, not taxable. According to him, they could only . become ' Explanation sales ' if aviation spirit.was delivered for the purpose of consumption within the State of West Bengal. The learned Advocate-General of West Bengal, on the other hand,

¶101

914 SVPRE:lfE COl!RT REPORT8 [1961]

¶102

¶103

¶104

''"'' cont.ender! that the Explanation did not apply to the 8^,.,.,,,,,-"" 11^{n.t_fact.8here,andth:Lt tho ohsen-at1 1ms intherulings} Stt>ta:..·e a, 1,, \Vere net relevant. D111n1,,;,,.,,. c,., The first sub-clause in its opeuin!( port.ion says that of Ind•a I.Id. no law of a Sta.te shall impose or authorise the imposiv. t.ion of a tax 011 the sale or purchase of goods where C(Jm111e;c:al sur. I l sa 1 e or pure 1asc l ta I 'es pace 1 outside t.hc State. Tax Off.ce1 h ] ft is t us p 11inly meant that a StatP i• not to tax sales I11daya10<11~1o ;. which take place out-side thaJ. State. But, where docs. a salr take place? _>: umrro1rn elcmc11ts go to make a sa]fl, and they may take place in more than rme State. Under the law relating to the sale of goods, property passes on the happening of certain events. Whn they happen, the sale is compll•te. Kow, a contract for f.he sale of goods may he entirely within one State when all parties arc within the State, the offer and acceptance also take place them, and the goods are also within that Stale, an<l there, the property in the good:> pasHes and delinry also takes place, But it may also happen that tho constituent Plements may be spri-ad ovr t.wo or more States, some of the elements described above falling withi1¹ one State and iorne others falling within one or morn other Stacs. Pri(>r to tht' Constitution, multiple taxation of a siugle tran:>aetion of sale was possible, and Provincial legislation then existing clearly rlcmunstrates that Stat.es having some co111wction with the sale because one or more element.a took place within those States, treated this as sufficient nexus bet ween the taxing power and the States, authorising them to tax sales even where property passed in another State. The Constituent Assembly desired to ichieve certain objects in the matter of taxation, particularly in relation to sales tax. Artide 286 achieves, among other object.H, the avoidance of this multiple taxation.

¶105

•

¶106

The first sub-clause of tho Article is clear in its terms, when it says that a State cannot tax Ra]es which take place outside the State. The converse is al.so true, that is to s:iy, tha.t a ::it:itP can tax a "ale of goods which takes place within tile State. By sale here is m~a.nt a completed transaction by whwh property in the goods passes. Before the property in tho

¶107

I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶108

915

¶109

• I

¶110

goods passes," the contract of sale is only exectitory, r96o and the buyer has only a chose in action." Property B h Sh 11 in the goods pass13s either by the fulfilment of the cono;~';,:rage :nd ditions of the contract, if any, or by the operation qf Di,1ributing co., the law relating to the sale of goods. of India Ltd.

¶111

B h Sh 11 o;~';,:rage :nd Di,1ributing co., of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

¶112

Starting from the basic fact that what is to be v. taxed under the Constitution is a sale completed by Commercial Tax Officer the transference of property in the goo d s, we have to see at what stage and where this happens. The Hidayatullah J. taxable event thus cannot be found at any earlier stage when the sale is not completed by the passing of property. The critical taxable event is the passing of property in the goods as a result of a contract for t.heir sale. The parties to the contract can agree when that event is to take place, but where it happens may be a matter of some doubt and even of difficulty. Where the parties have not agreed as to the time of the passing of property, the law relating to the sale of goods furnishes the answer. Ther.e too, there may be the same difficulty as to the place of the passing of prope{ty. The place of physical delivery of the goods does not help to solve this d,ifficulty, because delivery may precede or follow the passing of property in the goods. Delivery of goods is, thus, not always rn element which determines the completion of a sale, because the sale may be completed both before an< after delivery. The Constitution, however, t!!inks in terms of a completed sale by the pass' .• g of property and not in terms of an executory conlfact for the sale of goods.

¶113

The essence of the matter being thus the passing of property in goods,. there was al ways a likelihood of more than one State claiming the right to tax the same transaction. One State might claim that goods in which property 'passed were in that State, and hence property in the goods passed there. Another State might claim that the con<liLicns precedent to the passing of property were fub _!1,_ d in that State and hence the sale was complet1.>d hy the passing of property there. Yet another bta.L" might claim that property passed in that State according as one or . more events corniected with the passing of property took place within that State. .

¶114

916 Sl!PREME COURT REPORTS [1961]

¶115

Durmali Shell Oil Storage and Dislribuling Co. of India !~Id. v. Commercial Tax Offictr }l'id1Jya111ffah j.

¶116

It wa.s t.o avoid this welter of confusion as fa.r as possible that the Explanation was added, and it also avoided multiple taxation. The ExpJauation f:erves two purpoHes. It indicates the State whero the tax can he levied, and also iudicates the St.ate or States where it cannot. ]t achie'es these two purpoes by excluding all considerations as to where property in the goods can be said to have pased under the la.w relating to the sale of goods. The purpose is a.<.:hiev1".d by tho Explanation and particularly by the _non obstante_ clau~e in the Explanation. Any State claiming to tax a sale of goods on the ground that it was completed by the passing of property ir1 the goods in that State could not do so, if the goods as a direct result of the sale were delivered for tho purpose of consumption in auother State. The Explanation creates a fiction that the saJe must be deemed to have t.aken place in the latter State and nut ip the State where the sale was completed by reason of passing of property. It thus discard; the test of passing of property and adopts the test of delivery 'as a direct result of such sale for the purpose of consumption in that State'. Whero more than one State is involved, .·~y State claiming to tax tho sale by reason of something a.ntnrior to the passing of property would not • ~ able to claim that the sale took place them unless it was ;,lBo thu State of delivery, because the sale is complete on!.> on th!! passing of property, and till the sale is com plote, liabHity to tax <loeH not a.rise. Once the sale i• complete, the delivery State gets the right to tax the sale by the fiction introduced.

¶117

•

¶118

¶119

Now, tho Explanation must be interpreted according to its own tenor, and it is meant to explain cl. (l)(a) of the Article and not vice versa. Il id an error to explain the Explanatiou with the a.id of tlte Article, because this reverses their roles. The Ex planation discards the test of passing Of property, and adopts the test of delivery as a direct result of the sale for purposes of <.:onsumption. This delivery may be in the State where the passing of property also took place, but then, there is no dilliculty. The sale is then entirely 'Yithin the State. The sale is outside

¶120

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT RE: vRTS

¶121

917

¶122

1 9⁶⁰

¶123

the Sta.ta only when the passing of property takes 1 9⁶⁰ place in the State, but that is. not the Stat.a where the Burmah-Shell Oil goods have been actually delivered as a direct result of storage and the sale for purposes of consumption in that State. Distributing Co .. The Constitution has, thu~, for certain cases shifted of India Ltd. and confined the sil.us of the taxable event to the State . v" f d b · . b b d Commercial Tax o t e e f h d 11ver.y^. o goo s; ut 1t must e remem ere Officer that this delivery may precede as well as follow the passing of. property. It is, therefore, plain that no Hidayatullah f: single element of th_e contract of sale is by itself a decisive factor in determining which State· is to tax the sale where there are more States than one involved, except the test-of actual delivery of the goods in a State as a direct result of the sale for purposes of consumption in that State, and it is that State and tha.t State only which has the right to tax the sale and none other.· The Explanation is not applicable, unless there are more States than one involved. It is only a key to find out which of the States is competent to tax and which are not, and is by no means a definition of a.n 'outside sale'. It is an Explanation, which determines which State out of those connected with the transaction of sale can tax it.

¶124

The interpretation which we have pla.ced upon the first sub-clause of Art. 286(1) is substantially the same, as wa.s placed in the earlier rulings of this Court. In The State of Bomf!ay and another v. The United Motors (India) Ltd. and others('), it was pointed out tha.t the Explanation formulated an easily applicable test to find out an 'outside sale ' and this, it wa.s said, wa.s done "by defining a.n inside sale". It wa.s observed further : ·

¶125

"Are the goods actually delivered in the taxing Sta.te, as a direct result of -a sale or p\Jrcha.se, for the purpose of consumption therein ? Then, such sale or purchase shall be deemed to have taken place in that State a.nd outside all other States".

¶126

Certain reasons were given why this test wa.s adopted, and it is these reasons and their effect on the second clause, which led to a re-exa.mination of the subolause in The Bengal Immunity Oompany Limited v. (1) (1953] S.C.R. •"69· 117

¶127

918 St:PREME COCRT REPORTS [ 1961]

¶128

1 06o The Stat.e of B·ihar and others('). The majurity in tha.t 8 h^-Sh 11^{C·I ca.setouched uponthevarious grounds which were} u>ttta ' ' d d '- f l . C b d l · 510^,age 0^.,d fi vanee ue ore t us ourt, ut ec med to express DL,,ibuling en," a.ny final opinion upon the matt"r ". The case went of 1 .. dra Lrd. on to dcC'ide that the ba.ns impost·•! by the two clauses v. of Art. 286 were independent, and needt•d to \Jo sepa- Commtrcial t J c d ]> J · f h L' 1 ra. e y cn1orce . ,ut, on t ie meanmg o t. e r.xp a- Tax 0/fict t nation, no different view was expressed. Again, in 1I1da;u1ullah J. M js. Ramnarain Sons Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Sale8 Tax and others('), it was ohs.,rved as follows:

¶129

"So fe.r as article 286(1Xa) is roncerned, the Explanation determines by the legal fiction created thuein the situs of the sale in the case of transactions coming .within that category and when a transaction j, thus dewrmined to be inside a particular State it neces·aarily becomos a. tran8>Lction outside a.II other States. The only relevant enquiry for the purposes of article 286(l)(a.), therefore, is whether a transaction is outside the Sta.te and once it is determined by the application of the Explanation tha.t it is outside the State it follows as a matter of course that the State with reference to which the transaction can thus be prcdi· ca.ted to be outside it can never t.ax the transaction ". (Ha.lies supplied).

¶130

:1';°ow, in so far as this case is concerned, the words "the Explanation determines by the legal fiction created therein Lhe situs of the sale in the case of transactions coming within that category" in the exiract last quoted, become important. Tho first c1uestion to consider is whether these cases ca.n be governed by the Explanation a.t all. The learned Att.orney-Genera.l contends that the power to tax these transactions can only be found if the sales were 'Explanation sales', in the sense tha.t the goods were delivered as a. direct result of the sale for consumption in \Vest Benga.1. In our opinion, the explanation can a.pply only if morti than one State is involved in the same transaction. Whon there is no other State in which the go,,ds can be sa.id to be delivered for consumption, a.pa.rt from the Sta.te where the property in the goods passed, the Expla.na.tion is not needed a.s a key. The (I) [1y53J 's.c.n. 6o3. <•l [19;iJ' s c 1<. 183. 1Y•·

¶131

¶132

l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS !ll9

¶133

¶134

power to tax in those circumstances which is exercis- 1 ?60 able by virtue of transfer of title to the property, c~n Bu,ma;-;;,,11 Oil only be taken away if there be some other State m stornge and which the goo<ls as a direct result of the sale were Dist.ibuting co., delivered for consumption. But if there is no such of India Lid. other State, the question does .not arise. v. · h · 1 St t Cotnniercial · In t e present cases, t ere 1s, no sue t e present cases, t ere 1s, no sue h h nva a e. , Tax Officer

¶135

· h · 1 St t Cotnniercial · In t e present cases, t ere 1s, no sue t e present cases, t ere 1s, no sue h h nva a e. , Tax Officer Where the purchaser buys goods in West Bengal for his own consumption, the test of. an 'fosi<le sale ' is Hidayatullah J. satisfied when the property in the goods passes in the same State and all the elements of the contract of sale also take place inside it. Where the prnperty in the goods passes to a buyer who is also the ultimate consumer, the terms of the Explanation are themselves satisfied. To exclude, thus, the powers of taxation of the State of West Bengal, the appellant Companies must be able to point out some other State where the goods can be said to have been delivered as a direct result of the sale for the purpose of consumption in that other State. Unless they' can do so-and they have not so done before us-t4ey cannot invoke the Explanation, and the cases, to borrow tbe language of the last quotation, cannot be said to be "within that category". In our opinion, the learned Advocate. General of West Bengal was right in his argument (which was accepted by the High Court) that the ban contained in Art. 286(l)(a) and the Explanation does not apply.

¶136

The appellant Companies next rely upon Art. 286 (l)(b), which provides that:-

¶137

"No Jaw of a State shall impose or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where- such sale or purchase takes placein tbe course of the ......... export of goods out of, the territory of India ".

¶138

The contention is that the sales in question must be regarded as having taken place in circumstances which exempt sales under the snb-clause. This the appellant Companies argue from the following facts that aviation spirit is delivered outside the customs barrier, that aviation spirit is taken out of the territories of India, a.nd that the sales occasion this

¶139

920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1961]

¶140

1 9 60 export. They rely upon tbf' definition of 'export' in Oil H 11rman szo,ag• , .. '" and t 11 other Acts to show t an h , ta k' mg out 0 f t e country , h that th~· word means no more 1 Distrib1<ting co.. This clause of the Article bas been construed on of 1'1dia Ltd. previous occasions by this Court, and what is meant v. by the expression "in the course of" ha.a been weII- Commuciat established. Indeed, in State of Mysore v. Mysore Tax Officer S . nd pinning a Manufacturing Co. Ltd.('), this Court Hidayatullali ;. observed that the point could no longer be said to be a.r, large. Fortunately, then• is less disagreement on this point than on the interpretation of the Explanation, and it is sufficient to refer to the leading decisions of this Court. The earliest case on the subject is State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. The Bombay Co. Ltd.('), where four possible meanings of the expression "in the course of" were considered. It is not necessary to refer to all of thf'm here, and it is sufficient to point out that of the view that the clause is not restricted to the point of time at which goods are exported from India. and that the series of transactions which neceassarily precede export of goods also come. within the purview of the clause, it was said that it was too wide. It was observed by this Court that :

¶141

"A sale by export thus involves a series of integrated activities commencing from the agreemont of sale with a. foreign buyer and ending with the delivery of the goods to a common carrier for transport out of the country by land or sea.. Such a sale cannot be dissocia.wd from the export without which it cannot be effectuated, and the sale and resultant export form parts of a single transaction. Of thcRe two integrated activities, which together constitute an export sale, whichever first occurs can well be regarded as taking place in the course of the other." '

¶142

The meaning of these observations was furthe. explained in State of Travancore-Cochin and others " Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory and Others('). It was observ"d (p. 62) that the words "export out of" in this context did not refer to the article or commodity exported, and that the reference to "the • (1) A.l.R. 1958 S. C. 1002. (2) [195•) S.C,R. un. (J) [19.i-.J S.C.R. 53.

(

1 S.C.R. - SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶147

921

¶148

goods" and~the "territory of India" made it clear .r9⁶ o that the words "export out of" meant the exporta. tion out of the country. It was then added that, 0B1'";1•ah Sheild " Th e wor d^' course e ymo ' t J . og1ca JI _ y eno es move-d t Dist.ibuting ' . orage an Co., ment from one point to another, and the expression of India Ltd. 'in the course of' not only implies a period of time v. during which the movement is in progress but postu- Commercial )ates also a connected relation." Tax Officer

¶149

This inter-connection of the sale sought to be taxed Hidayatullah J. with the course ,,f ·export was emphasised _again in clear terms thus :

¶150

"The phrase 'integrated activities' was used in the previous decision to denote that _,such sale' (i.e., a sale which occasions the export) 'cannot be dissoci. ated from the. export without which it cannot be effectuated, and the sale and the resultant export form parts of a single transaction'. It is in that sense that the two activities-the sale and export-were said to be integrated. A purchase for the purpose of export like production or manufacture for export, is only an act preparatory to export and cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as an act done ' in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India ' any more than the other two activities can be so regarded."

¶151

From the views here expressed, it follows that every sale or . purchase preceding the export is not necessarily to be regarded as,within tlie course of export. It must be inextricably bound up with the export, and a sale or purchase unconnected with the ultimate export as an integral part thereof is not within the exemption. It may thus be taken as settled that sales or purchases for the purpose of export are not protected, unless the sales or purchases them. selves occasion the export and are an integral part of it. The views expressed in these two cases were accepted and applied in State of Madras v. Gurviah Naidu and Go. Ltd. (¹ ), KailashNath v. State of U.P. ('}, State of Mysore v. Mysore· Spinning and Manufacturing Go. Ltd. (') and Gordhandas Lalji v. B. Banerjee (1) A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 158. (2) A.I.R. 1957 S".C. 790. (3) A.LR. 1958 S.C. 1002.

¶152

922 SVPRIUIE COURT HEPOHT1' [196!]

¶153

r·'·· anJ. othus ('). These cases do not advance tho matter further, and it i~, tlwrefore, not IH:•;essarv to refer to Bun;1..,h-Si-di 01! l "' .·f(•l",'lC( (1':-J - j Jl0lli in detail. Di1tui,,·,:,1r; en,_ In the <'a.rlhr cases, it \'aH no1 nec(•ssa.r3 to ex pl a.in of 1,,d .. • Ud. the meaning of the word 'export', because there was v. always a foreign huyer to whom the goods ''ere ulti. Co""'""'"' -r,,, matelv sent. In none of the cases the facts found 0 F-"' lu·re ere present. I-fore, the buyer dues not export. Hidaratulfoh /. t 111 good:< to a foreign country, but purchases them for his own use on the journey· of the aircraft to foreign countries. This difference is vital, and makes the pt:•sition of the appellant Companies, if anything, wca. krr. It is for this reason that the appellant Companies depend on a wide meaning of the word 'Pxport ', which thev illustrato from other Acts where the word is tant.arnount to 'taking out of the country'. We are of opinion that. this meaning cannot be gi1·e11 to the word 'export ' in the clause. The word 'export ' may conceivably be used in more senses than one. In one sense, 'export.' may mean sending or taking out of the com1try, but in another sense, it may mean sending goods frllm one country to another. Often, the latter involves 1~ commercial transaction but not necessarily. The country. tn which the goods are thus sent is 8aid to import them, and the worrls 'export.' and 'import' in this seme are complementary. An illustrntiou will cxpre~s thisdi!T<'r<'nee 'i\•idly. Goods cannot be said to be, exported if they aro ordered by the health authorities to be destroyed by dumping them in the sea, and for that purpose are I aken out of the territories of ]J, ~:a and beyond the tnritorial waterR and dumped in tho open sea. Couversely, goods put on board a steamer bound for a for,,igu country but jettisoned can still be said to ha'e been 'exported', even though thev do not reach their destination. In the ono case, the;·e is i10 export, and in the other, there is, though in either case the goods go to the bot.tom of the sC'a. The firnt would not he within the exemption <•ven if a sale was involved, while any sale in the course of tlu· secoud taking out would be. 1n both, the goods were taken out of the country. The difference lies in . (1) A.l.R. 1958 S.C. too6.

¶154

•

¶155

1 S.C.R .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 923

¶156

1 960 960 60 Hunuah-Shell Oil stornge and n;,tribut;ng co, of 1,,,1;a ua. v. Commercial Tax Of;icer

¶157

the fact that whereas the goods, in the first example,' 1 960 960 60 had no foreign destination, the goods, in t.he second ex- Hunuah-Shell Oil ample, had. It means, therefore, that while all exports stornge and involvn a taking out of the country, all goods taken n;,tribut;ng co, out of the country cannot be said to be exporte,J. The of 1,,,1;a ua. test is that the goods must have a foreign destination v. J It tt Commercial Tax where they can b e sai d to e b 1mporte<^· . . ma ers Of;icer not that there is no valuable consideration rom f the receiver at the destination end. lf the goods are ex- llidayatu/lah J. ported and there is sale or purchase in the course of that export and the sale or purchase occasions the export to a foreign destination, the exemption is earned. Purchases made by philanthropists of gcods in the course of export to foreign countries to alleviat. distress there, may still be exempted, even thouci• the sending of the goods was a not a commercial venture but a charitable one. The crucial fact is the sending of the goods t'o a foreign destination where they would be received as imports. The two uotionH of export and import, thus, go iu pairs.

¶158

Applying these several tests to the cases on Jrnnd, it is quite plain that aviation spirit loaded on boa!'d an aircraft for consumption, though taken out of the country, is not exported since it has no destination where it can be said to be imported, and so long as it does not satisfy this test, it cannot be said that the sale was in the course of export. Further, as has already been pointed out, the sales {Jan hardly be said to '.occasion' the export. The seller sells aviation spirit for the use of the aircraft, and the sale is not integrally connected with the taking out of aviation spirit. The s1tle is not even for t.he purpose of export, as explained above. It does 'not come within the course of export, which requires an even deeper rolatiou. The sales, thus, do not come within Art. 286 (l)(b).

¶159

These sales must, therefore, be treated as made within the State of West Bengal. The customs barrier is a barrier for customs purposes, and duty drawback may be admissible if the goods once imported are taken out of the country. The customs duty drawbacks have nothing to do with the sale of aviation

¶160

924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]

¶161

1!>60 BumwhSh•ll0 ,1 StNoge0 ,,J _Dis1>1&ut1ng_Co,. ofIndioLtd. v. *Co11u11ercia/* *TaxOffictr* HodoyatullaJ,J.	spirit, whichtakesplace in West Bengal. The cus- tom~barrier ?oes not set a terminal limit to the territoryof\oat Bengal for salestaxpurposes.The sale beyondthecustoms barrierisstill a sale, in fact, in theStateofWest Bengal. Both the buyerand the sellerareinthatState. The goods are also thllre. All h 1 f I · 1d' d 1 t e e cments o sa e me u mg e ivery,payment of price,takeplace withintheState. The saleisthus completely withintheterritory of tho taxing State.No outside Sta.ti; is involved wherethegoods can.be said tohave been delivered for consumptionasadirect resultofthesalethattakes place. Article 28ti(l)(a) and theExplanationa.rewholly inapplicable,andthe salecannot,oven by a fiction, be said tobeoutside theStateofWest Bengal. Xo doubt, aviation spirit is takenoutofthe·Stateandalso the territoryof India,butitcannotbesaid to have beenexportOOor delivered for consumption in some other State.The so-calledexportisnotoccasioned bythesale,andthe sale, ontheauthorities cited, isnotinthecourseof •export',soastoattractArt. 286(l)(b). The decisionoftheHigh Court was correct.The appealsfail,andaredismissed with costs. One hear- ing fee. Appeals dismissed.	. ,.

¶162

1960 Sep1ember 27.

¶163

B. · K. W ADEY AR

¶164

¶165

M/S. DAULATRAM RAMESHWARLAL

¶166

(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYA'l'ULLAH, K. c. DAS GUP'l'A,. J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANOAR, JJ.) Sales Tax-Export-Meani11g of--Properly i11 exported goods in F. O. B. contracts-If passes on shipment or before it-Export licence-If obtai11able by b1<yer or seller-" Person", meaning of - Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Rom. Il I of 1953), s. lo(b)-'Fhe ImpOf't and Export (Control) Act, 1947 (XV I II of 1947), s. 5(2)- Conslitution of India, Art. 286(1)(b).

¶167

The respondents firm claimed _exempti?n from Sales Tax under Art. 286(1)(b) of the Constitut1on m respect of sales

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd., and Another v. the Commercial Tax Officer and Others (and Connected Appeal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd., and Another v. the Commercial Tax Officer and Others (and Connected Appeal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Homi Jehangir Gheesta versus the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

E. M. Muthappa Chettiar versus the Income-Tax Officer Special Circle, Coimbatore

Sri Sudhansu Shekhar Singh Deo versus the State of Orissa and Another

B. K. Wadeyar versus M/S. Daulatram Rameshwarlal

L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala versus the Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala Cantt.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh & Bhopal, Nagpur versus Bhopal Textiles Ltd., Bhopal.