Passing of property and purchase tax liability turned on plain statutory language and documentary shipment terms.

Property in the rubber consignments was treated as passing in Bombay, not in Cochin, because the goods were shipped on documents held through the bank, with delivery against payment in Bombay and the insurance-risk wording not being decisive. On purchase tax, section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was applied according to its plain language: tax was attracted where goods were bought from an unregistered dealer, and no territorial limitation was read into the word "person". Section 10C was treated as covering a different class of transactions. The purchases were therefore held liable to purchase tax.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the property in the rubber consignments passed to the assessee in Cochin, outside the State of Bombay. (ii) Whether purchase tax under section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was leviable on the purchases in dispute.

Issue (i): Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the property in the rubber consignments passed to the assessee in Cochin, outside the State of Bombay.

Analysis: The sellers had agents in Bombay who took the orders and arranged shipment. The goods were shipped from Cochin to Bombay, the bills of lading stood in the name of the sellers as consignors and consignees, and delivery of the documents through the bank was to be made in Bombay on payment of price. The invoice reference to shipment at the buyers' risk and on their account was treated as relating to insurance and not as decisive of the passing of property.

Conclusion: The property in the goods passed in Bombay, and not in Cochin.

Issue (ii): Whether purchase tax under section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was leviable on the purchases in dispute.

Analysis: Section 10(a) levied purchase tax where goods were purchased from a person who was not a registered dealer. No qualifying limitation was read into the word 'person' so as to confine it to residents of Bombay or to dealers having a place of business in the State. The existence of section 10C did not exclude section 10(a), because section 10C dealt with a different class of buyers and transactions.

Conclusion: Purchase tax under section 10(a) was leviable on the purchases in question.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee on both questions, and the purchases were held liable to purchase tax with costs awarded to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory language is plain, effect must be given to it according to its terms, and purchase tax is attracted if the buyer purchases goods from an unregistered dealer, without adding territorial qualifications not found in the provision.

---