TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the procurement millers were entitled to retain the enhanced sale-price difference as their own property or were bound to pass it on to the Government; (ii) whether the Government's direction to collect the price difference was within the powers conferred by the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act and the licences issued thereunder.
Issue (i): Whether the procurement millers were entitled to retain the enhanced sale-price difference as their own property or were bound to pass it on to the Government.
Analysis: The arrangements were held not to create a true buyer-seller relationship, but also not to amount in strict law to principal and agent. The licensees acted under compulsory directions, with no real discretion, and their position was governed by the licence terms and the procurement scheme. The increase in price was designed to implement Government policy for the benefit of producers and was not intended to enrich the millers. The retention of the difference would therefore amount to an unjust benefit obtained by reason of the licence arrangement and the Government's directions.
Conclusion: The millers were not entitled to retain the enhanced price difference, and the amount was payable to the Government.
Issue (ii): Whether the Government's direction to collect the price difference was within the powers conferred by the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act and the licences issued thereunder.
Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the Government to control prices, regulate licences, and require stock-holders to sell essential commodities to specified persons on specified terms. The direction to sell at the enhanced price and make over the difference fell within that power. The licensees had accepted the benefit of the scheme and acted under it, so they could not accept the licence and at the same time challenge the obligation to pass on the difference. The demand was treated as part of the regulatory scheme, not as an unlawful levy or surcharge.
Conclusion: The Government's direction was within statutory power and valid, and the suits for refund were not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals by the State succeeded, the plaintiffs' claims failed, and the decrees in favour of the millers were set aside, resulting in dismissal of all the suits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a licensee carries on regulated dealings in essential commodities under a statutory procurement scheme and accepts the benefit of the licence, the enhanced price difference stipulated by the Government under the governing control order is recoverable by the Government if the statutory power includes price regulation and compulsory sale on specified terms.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
