Controlled sugarcane transactions can still be sales, and factories may be dealers under sales tax law despite regulatory pricing and supply orders.

Statutory control over sugarcane supply, pricing, quantity, and delivery did not eliminate mutual assent where growers and factories still entered into agreements showing offer, acceptance, and transfer of property on appropriation; such controlled transactions could still be sales of unascertained goods under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. Sugar factories purchasing cane as part of their business were treated as dealers because the statutory definition covered persons buying goods and those selling goods produced by manufacture. The levy of purchase tax at different rates across States was not shown to offend article 14, and the dealer's inability to pass the tax on to customers did not affect the validity of the levy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the compulsory regulatory orders governing supply and purchase of sugarcane eliminated mutual assent so as to prevent the transactions from constituting sales; (ii) whether the sugar factories were dealers within the meaning of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957; (iii) whether the levy of purchase tax at different rates in different States offended article 14 of the Constitution of India; and (iv) whether inability to pass on the purchase tax to purchasers of sugar affected the validity of the levy.

Issue (i): whether the compulsory regulatory orders governing supply and purchase of sugarcane eliminated mutual assent so as to prevent the transactions from constituting sales.

Analysis: The statutory control regime fixed the area of supply, minimum price, quantity, and obligation to enter into agreements, but it did not exclude contract altogether. The parties were identified, the grower agreed to sell and the factory agreed to buy, delivery and payment were regulated, and the agreements themselves showed scope for price, quantity, delivery terms, inspection, and appropriation. On the sale-of-goods principles, the transactions were sales of unascertained goods and property passed on appropriation in accordance with the contract.

Conclusion: The transactions constituted sales within section 2(t) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the contention of absence of mutual assent failed.

Issue (ii): whether the sugar factories were dealers within the meaning of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The statutory definition covered persons carrying on the business of buying, selling, supplying, or distributing goods, including persons who sell goods produced by them by manufacture or otherwise. The factories purchased sugarcane as part of their business activity, and the fact that the cane was used as raw material for manufacture of sugar did not take them outside the definition.

Conclusion: The factories were dealers within section 2(k) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (iii): whether the levy of purchase tax at different rates in different States offended article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The levy operated uniformly on all factories within Mysore, and differences in rates between States could be justified by differing local conditions, availability of cane, agriculturists' circumstances, and the number of factories. No material established unconstitutional discrimination.

Conclusion: The levy did not violate article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (iv): whether inability to pass on the purchase tax to purchasers of sugar affected the validity of the levy.

Analysis: The legal incidence of the tax remained on the dealer, and the inability to recover the tax from customers did not alter the character or validity of the levy.

Conclusion: The levy was not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety, and the impugned levy of purchase tax was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory regulation of price, quantity, area, and supply does not destroy a sale where the parties still enter into agreements showing offer, acceptance, and transfer of property for consideration; such controlled transactions may nevertheless amount to taxable sales and render the buyer a dealer under the sales tax law.

---