Assessee manufacturing machinery sold two arc furnaces, purchased for its foundry and found unsuitable, at a profit. Held the sale was of fixed capital assets, not business activity; the assessee was not a 'dealer' for that sale, so the proceeds were not includible in taxable turnover.
Appeal dismissed with costs; sale proceeds held not liable to sales tax.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A
STATE OF MADRAS
v.
MIS. K. C. P. LTD.
A ug11st 20, 1968
[J. C. SHAii V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER. JJ.]
B
Central Sales Tax Act LXX/V. of 1956-Ss. 2(b) and 9(3)-Assessee engaged in 111anufact11re and salt• of nuichinery parts-Purc:/lasing furnaces for irs foundry----011 their being found 1111sui1ab/e selling thern at a profit-If a 'dealer' in respect of such sale-Whether sales tax payable on such sale.
c
The respondent Company carried on business of manufacture and sale of machinery and parts of machinciry etc. For its manufacturing activities, it maintained a foundry and in 1952 it purchased two arc furnaces for use in this foundry. As the furnaces were found unsuitable they wcr~ sold to a purchaser at a profit. For the asscnmcnt year 195859 the s;de.s tax a.'scssing authorities included the sale price of the furnaces in the turnover of the Company allhouJ?h it \·as maintained by the Company that the sale represented an isolated sale of itc; fixed capial assets. An appeal to !he Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal wa.' rejected but the High Court allowed a revision pcti1ion on the view that it wac; impossible to hold that the sale of the arc furnaces was either ingrained in the business activity of the asscssce or would constitute its normal business activity; and that the mere fact !hat the sale price exceeded the cost price of the arc furnaces was not sufficient to establish that the sale was a business activity or that ir wac; nctuatOO by the profit motive.
D
On appeal to this Court.
HELD : The High Court had rightly concluded that the sale proceeds of the furnaces could not be included in the turnover of the assessee for dctcrminin2 ils Jiahilitv to sales tax.
The furnaces were admittedly imported for the purpo!'e of bein~ installed as a part of the plant in the foundry of 1he asses.see. There was no material to show that there was any intention at the time when the furnaces were purchased of selling them al a profit. Although the assessec was dealing in the sale of heavy machinery and machinery parLo; it was nO\.·here proved that furnaces were ever manufactured or sold by it or were part of its business or ingrained therein. The arc furnaces \"Crc either fixed assets or <liscarckd goods \vhich had been found lo be unserviceable dr unsuitable. The asses.sec could not thcrcfora be said to be a dealer within the definition g·ven in '· 2(b) of the Central Act. [783 F-784 BJ State of Andhm Pradesh v. Ahdul Bc.kshi & Bros., 15 S.T.C. 644 and State of Gujarn.t v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. f.td., 19 S.T.C. I; distinguished. Ambica Mills I.tel. v. State of Gujarat., 15 S.T.C. 367, Stat~ of Gujarct v. Vivekananda Mills. 19 S.T.C. 103, referred to. C1vn, APPEi.LATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 731 of 1966. •
F
G
H
MADRAS v. K. C. P. L'J'D. (GtGlY~r, J.)
779
•
A Appeal by special leave from . the judgm~nt and order dated October 22, 1964 of the Madras High {:ourt in Tax Case No. 197 of 1963 (Revision No. 126). ·
A. K. Sen and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
S. T. Desai and T. A. Ramachand~an, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'. I
I
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave in which the >Ole question for decision is whether the respondent compny was liable to pay sales tax on an amunt of Rs. 4,20,000 ben~g the sale-price of two arc furnaces which had been purchased m 1952 and sold in 1958. ·
c
The respondent company carried on business at 38, Mount Road, Madras. Its main business being the manufacture and sale of machinery and parts of machinery and accessories. For manufacturing parts of the machinery, the company maintained a foundry and in 1952 it purchased two arc furnaces for a sum of Rs. 2,13,512.81 for the purpose of using the same in its founD dry. In the account books and the balance sheet of the company these furnaces were shown under the heading "workshop equipment". According to the company the furnaces were found to be unsuitable for the purpose for which they had been purchased and therefore they were disposed of in 1958 to a purchaser in Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 4,20,000. For the assessment E year 1958-59 the assessing authorities sought 10 include the amount of Rs. 4,20,000 in the turnover of the company although it was maintained by the cOtjlpany that the sale represented an isolated sale of its fixed capital assets. The appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, also failed. The view of the tribunal may be stated in its own words :-
F
F "It is not denied that the appellant comes within the scope of the definition of "dealer". It has to be seen whether the sale of the two arc furnaces had a reasonable connection with the normal course of business of the assessee. The fact that the appellant could not use them or that they are surplus machinery cannot G take it out of the ambit of the appellant's business of sales of machinery or part of machinery. The necessity to dispose of unwanted machinery is ingrained in the very nature of business of sale of machinery which the assessee was carrying on and it had to effect sales of such surplus materials". ·
H A revision petition was presented to the High Court of Madras under s. 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (Act I of 1959) read withs. 9(3) of the Central Sale Tax Act, 1956 (Act LXXIV •of 1956), hereinafter called the Madras Act and the Central Act
(1969] I S.C.R
780
Sl1f'R€ME COURT REP0RTS
respectively. Before die High Court it was argued on behali of the asse;see that the furnaces were purchased for the purpose of being installed in the factory. It was therefore to be used as capital asset and not as a part of the stock-in-trade. At the time of purchase the asseSiice had no idea of selling the furnaces and there was no intention of making any profit. The business which was carried 'On by the assessee was entirely different, namely, production of machinery and parts and the sale of t11c furnaces. when they were found to be unserviceable, was not made in the course of the normal business activity of the asse>see. The position taken up on behalf of the State was that when the asse1see carried on t11e business of selling machinery of various kinds the ale of arc furnaces must be regarded as sale of machinery in the normal course of its business activity. '11te learned Judges of the High Court referred lo a large number of decided cases including the decision of this cOUrt in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Bakshi & Bros.('} Reliance was finally placed on the observatior.s in Ambico Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat(') in which it was 0bsrved inter alia that the machinery which had been disposed of had been obviously purchased and installed for use for production of te~tile goods. The view taken in that decision was that a person could not be said to be carrying on business of selling assets of that business when sale of such asse(.) had been made only because they had become useless and unserviceable by usual we:ir and tear or because of the necessity for substituting modern machinery. In the present case the learned Madras Judges were of !he opinion that it was impossible to hold that !he sale of the arc furnaces was either ingrained in the business activity of the asscssec or would constitute its normal business aclivity. According lo them the mere fact that the sale price exceeded the cost price of the arc furnace was not sufficient to establish that their rnle was a business activity or that it was actuated by the profit motive. It was consequently held that the turnover of the assessee was not liable to sales tax.
A
B
c
D
E
F
Mr. A. K. Sen for the appellant contends that the Jssessee being a dealer in heavy machinery and accessories thereof the sale of arc furnaces could not be said to be wholly different and unconnected with its usual business activity. lie has emphasised the fact that the assessee had admit!edly made a profit of Rs. 2,07,000 from the aforesaid transaction and in addition col· lectecl sales tax from the Calcutta dealer. He has called atten· tion to the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the sale in the present case wa, not on;: of used asset and that whatever the intention at the time of the purchase might be, once the, machinery was found not usab!c. the -· .-- ·-. -·--·- (I) J 5 S.T.C. 6.!'l. (2) 15 S.TC. 36"7.
G
H .
MADRAS v. K. c. P. LTD. (Grover, !.)
781
•
H
[1969] I S.C.R·
s1;rREME COURT REPORTS
782
dealer : the definition merely requires that the buying of the commodity mentioned in rule 5 ( 2) must be in the course of business, i.e. must be for sale or use wilh a view to make profit out of the integrated activity of buying and disposal. The commodity may itself be converted into another saleable commodity, or it may be used as an ingredient or in aid of a manufacturing process leading to the production of such saleable commodity".
The facts in the decision of chis Court under discussion were different and distingttishable from· the present case. The tanning bark was actually consumed in the process of manufacturing another commodity and it was either used as an ingredient or for aiding the process of manufacture which cannot be said about the arc furnaces which were indisputably bought (or being installed in the foundry as a part of the manufacturing plant. The words "in aid of a manufacturing process" have to be read in the context in which they aPpear in the passage extracted above and cannot be taken to mean that even a part of manufacturing plant will become a salable commodity if it is found to be unusable or no longer required. Such a view is untenable and cannot be regarded as sustainable in the light of !he decision of this Court. In State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.('), the lribunal had held chat where a cotton textile mill had managed to collect unserviceable article in the course of manufacture of cloth which were sold, sales of these articles must be regarded as a part of the business of the textile mill if the transactions of sale were large and frequent. After referring to the definition and the expression "dealer" in s. 2 ( 6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and the other relevant provision of that Act as also the law laid down in the State of A11dl1ra Pradesh v. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. (2) it was observed that by the use of the expression "profit motive" it was not intended chat profit muse, in fact, be earned nor did the expression cover a mere desire to make some monetary gain out of the transaction or even a series of transactions. It predicates a motive which pervades the whole series of transactions effected by the person in the course of his activity. Where a per· son came to own, in the course of his business of manufacturing or selling a commodity some other commodity which is not a byproduct tJr a subsidiary product of that business and he sold that commodity, cogent evidence that he had the intention to carry on the business of selling that commodity would be required. It was further observed that where a person in the course of carrying on the business was required to dispose of what might be called his fixed assets or his discarded goods acquired in the course of business, an inference that he desired to carry on the -- - . ·--fl) 19 S.T.C I (2) i< S.l.C 1•44. 1•44. •
(2) i< S.l.C 1•44. 1•44. •
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
783
MADRAS v. K. c. P. LTD. (Grover,!.)
•
-
The facts and circumstances which have been established in the present case are stronger than those in the previous decisions of this Court. The furnaces were admittedly imported for the purpose of being installed as a part of the plant in the foundry of the assessee. There is no material whatsoever to show that there was any intention at the time when the furnaces were purchased F of selling them at a profit. According to Mr. Sen himself the assessee decided to sell the furnaces because it was discovered that they were too big to be installed in the manufacturing plant. The case of the assessee throughout was and no evidence or mat.?rial to the contrary existed that the furnaces had been shown in the books of the assessee under the classification "workshop G equipment". The same entries existed in the balance sheet. Although the assessee was dealing in the sale of heavy machinery and machinery part it was nowhere proved that furnaces were ever manufactured or sold by it or were part of its business or ingrained therein. The arc furnaces were either fixed assets or discarded goods which had been found to be unserviceable or unsuitable. The assessee could therefore hardly be said to be a H dealer within the definitiou given in s. 2(b) of the Central Act which is
(1969) ! S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
784
" "dealer"' means any person who carries on the A business of selling goods, and includes a Government which carries on such business." This definition has to be read in the light of the principles which have been laid down by this Court in the cases relcrred to above. It must therefore be held that the High Court rightly came to B the conclusion that the sale proceeds of the furnaces could not he included in the turnover of the asscssee for the purpose of determining the liability of the assessce to sales tax. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed. c R.K.P.S.
•
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sale proceeds of two arc furnaces bought as fixed assets for the assessee's foundry and later sold at a profit formed part of taxable turnover under s. 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Bakshi & Bros.Distinguished
15 S.T.C. 644
State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.Distinguished
19 S.T.C. 1
Ambica Mills Ltd. v. State of GujaratReferred
15 S.T.C. 367
State of Gujarat v. Vivekananda MillsReferred
19 S.T.C. 103
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Madras
M/s. K. C. P. Ltd.
J. C. Shah
V. Ramaswami
A. N. Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
