Controlled brick supplies without mutual assent are not sales for tax purposes, so levy on permit-based transactions fails.

Brick supplies made only against permits issued under a statutory control order were held not to be sales for sales tax purposes. The HC applied the test of a contract of sale requiring mutual assent and freedom of volition, and found that the manufacturer or dealer could not refuse, vary, or negotiate the quantity or time of delivery once a permit was produced. Because the control regime removed the essential element of consensual bargain, the transactions did not fall within the sales tax definition. Tax could therefore not be levied on such supplies, and the assessment orders were quashed to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether supplies of bricks made only against permits issued under the control order constituted sales within the meaning of the sales tax statute.

Analysis: The supply arrangement under the control order left the manufacturer or dealer with no freedom to refuse, vary, or negotiate the quantity or time of delivery once a permit was produced. The legal test applied was whether there was a contract of sale involving mutual assent and volition. On the same principle on which compelled despatches under a control order were held not to be sales, the brick supplies here lacked the essential element of consensual bargain, even though the price was controlled and the consumer obtained the permit.

Conclusion: The brick transactions made against permits were not sales under the sales tax definition, and tax could not be levied on such supplies.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were quashed to the extent they included tax on brick supplies made to permit holders, and the petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a supply is made under a statutory control regime that removes freedom of contract and the element of mutual assent, the transaction is not a sale for sales tax purposes.

---