1965 (12) TMI 110 - SC - VAT / Sales Tax

Mills entitled to sales tax rebate under section 5 for deliveries outside state jurisdiction

Amritsar Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh

Amritsar Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh - [1966] 17 STC 405 (SC), AIR 1966 SC 1242 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:(a) Whether the revising authority was correct in holding that the sales in dispute were not for delivery outside Uttar Pradesh within the meaning of section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948;(b) Whether the assessee-mills was entitled to a rebate under section 5 of the Act for sales of sugar dispatched outside Uttar Pradesh but sold to parties carrying on business inside Uttar Pradesh;(c) The legal interpretation of the term 'delivery' in the phrase 'sales of such goods for delivery outside the State' under section 5 of the Act-specifically, whether it refers to actual physical delivery or constructive delivery;(d) Whether despatch instructions given by the buyers after the formation of the contract form part of the contract itself or merely relate to the mode of performance;(e) The effect of the contractual terms between the assessee-mills and their selling agents (Tandan Bros.) and the buyers outside Uttar Pradesh on the question of entitlement to rebate;(f) The applicability and scope of the rebate under section 5 in the context of sales involving multiple parties and delivery locations.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) and (c): Interpretation of 'delivery' under section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948The relevant statutory provision, section 5, grants a rebate of half the tax levied on sales of notified manufactured goods if such goods are 'actually delivered' outside Uttar Pradesh. The Court examined whether 'delivery' includes constructive delivery (i.e., deemed delivery by law) or is limited to actual physical delivery.Precedent from the Madras High Court in India Coffee and Tea Distributing Co. Ltd. v. The State of Madras was considered, where the term 'delivery' was held to mean physical delivery, not constructive delivery. The rationale was that the legislative intent behind such rebate provisions is to promote export of goods physically delivered outside the State, and allowing constructive delivery to qualify would defeat this object.The Court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the object of section 5 is to encourage genuine export sales. Interpreting 'delivery' as constructive delivery would unduly restrict the availability of rebate, as many export sales could be characterized as constructive delivery only. Therefore, 'delivery' in section 5 means actual physical delivery outside Uttar Pradesh.Issue (b), (d), and (e): Whether sales were for actual delivery outside Uttar Pradesh and the contractual effect of despatch instructionsThe facts revealed that the assessee-mills sold sugar to parties carrying on business inside Uttar Pradesh but dispatched the goods to stations outside Uttar Pradesh in accordance with despatch instructions received from the buyers. The contracts were entered into with the selling agents (Tandan Bros.), who acted as buyers, but the goods were ultimately delivered to third parties outside Uttar Pradesh.The High Court had held that the rebate was not admissible because the contract of sale was ex-factory (within Uttar Pradesh) and did not contain a term requiring delivery outside the State. It reasoned that despatch instructions given after formation of the contract were not part of the contract but related only to the mode of performance. The Court relied on a previous decision where it was held that the obligation to deliver outside the State must be a term settled at contract formation.The Court under review disagreed with the High Court's approach. It held that the despatch instructions were indeed part of the contract and not merely directions for performance. The contract expressly contemplated delivery at a place to be communicated later, and such communication was essential to complete the contract. The contract did not provide for delivery at a fixed place but required the buyer to give despatch instructions specifying the place of actual delivery.Therefore, the place of delivery was a contractual term to be settled by the buyer's instructions, and the contract was incomplete without them. This meant that the sales were effectively for delivery outside Uttar Pradesh when despatch instructions directed delivery to places outside the State.The Court noted that the contractual clauses provided that the goods would be deemed delivered when tendered at the factory station or put on rail, but the ultimate destination was determined by despatch instructions. The seller was not responsible for delays or errors in despatch, underscoring that the buyer controlled the place of delivery.The Court rejected the argument that delivery to the selling agents (Tandan Bros.) within Uttar Pradesh precluded rebate, emphasizing that the ultimate delivery to parties outside Uttar Pradesh pursuant to contractual despatch instructions was determinative.Issue (f): The entitlement to rebate under section 5Given the Court's interpretation that 'delivery' means actual physical delivery and that despatch instructions form part of the contract determining the place of delivery, the Court concluded that the sales in question were for delivery outside Uttar Pradesh.This conclusion meant that the assessee-mills were entitled to the rebate under section 5 for the sales of sugar physically delivered outside Uttar Pradesh, even if the contract was initially made with a party inside Uttar Pradesh or through selling agents.The Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the revising authority erred in denying the rebate.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'The word 'delivery' occurring in section 5 means 'actual delivery'.''The despatch instructions contemplated by the contract were part of the contract and not merely directions for performance.''The sales were for delivery outside Uttar Pradesh when the goods were physically delivered outside the State pursuant to despatch instructions forming part of the contract.''The revising authority was not right in holding that the sales in dispute were not for delivery outside Uttar Pradesh. Further the applicant was entitled to rebate under section 5 of the Act.'Core principles established include:(i) The legislative intent behind rebate provisions for sales for delivery outside the State is to encourage actual export of goods physically delivered outside the State;(ii) The term 'delivery' in such provisions must be interpreted as actual physical delivery, not constructive or deemed delivery;(iii) Contractual terms which fix the place of delivery after contract formation, such as despatch instructions, can form part of the contract and determine the place of delivery for purposes of such rebate provisions;(iv) The identity of the contracting party and the party taking delivery may differ, but what matters is the actual delivery outside the State pursuant to the contract.