TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (11) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....----- The judgment of the court was delivered by HEGDE, J.-These appeals by certificate can be disposed of by one judgment. They raise common questions of law. The material facts are not in dispute. In Civil Appeals Nos. 498, 499 to 502 of 1970, the principal question of law that arises for decision is whether the producers who supplied the cement to the State Trading Corporation or its agents in gunny bags in pursuance of the directions given by the Government are liable to pay sales tax on the turnover relating to the price of the gunny bags. The only other question that arises for decision in these appeals relates to the interpretation of rule 6(f) of the Rules framed. under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cement Control Order, 1958. The relevant assessment years with which we are concerned in these appeals are assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. It is admitted that the Central Government by its order dated March 26, 1959, informed all concerned thus: "Packing charges for cement for period commencing First April to Thirtieth June, Nineteen Fiftynine, will be Rupees Eleven Decimal Five Four per ton in New Gunny Bags." Again by its order dated June 24, 1959, it stipulated that the packing charges for cement for the period commencing 1st July to 30th September, 1959, will be Rs. 11.04 per ton, in new gunny bags. The Central Government by its letter dated December 26, 1959, informed the State Trading Corporation that it has accep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hence we cannot go into the question whether the Central Government had power to fix the actual price of the gunny bags. The fact remains that the Central Government had fixed the actual price of the gunny bags. Its right to fix the price had not been disputed in the pleadings before the High Court nor does it appear from the judgment of the High Court that that question was urged before it. It is raised for the first time at the hearing. In the result, for the reasons mentioned above, the contention that supplies of gunny bags by the producers amounted to "sales" must be rejected. Now coming to the contention raised in the other appeals, which also arises in some of the appeals earlier considered, it relates to the interpretation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cking and not the cost of packing material. It is not disputed that the price of the packing materials was separately charged in the bills issued. In support of his contention that price of packing material is not covered by the rule in question, Mr. Desai relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in State of Madras and Others v. R. Damodaran Chettiar & Co.[1966] 18 S.T.C. 451., This decision undoubtedly supports Mr. Desai's contention; but the learned Judges who decided that case overlooked an earlier decision of that High Court in The State of Madras, In re [1956] 7 S.T.C. 355. In that case Rajagopalan and Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ., had taken the view that a rule identical in terms with rule 6(f) as it stood till September, 1963, exe....