1953 (7) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as follows: The petitioner collected cocoanuts from various persons in Orissa and sold them to several dealers in Raipur and Manbhum. The purchas- ing firms placed orders with the petitioner and also paid come money in advance. On receipt of such orders, the petitioner indented for railway wagons, loaded them with cocoanuts and booked them by rail to Raipur and Manbhum and sent the railway receipts to the purchasing firms either through bank or through V. P. P. The purchasing firms obtained custody of the railway receipts on payment of the full price inclusive of transport charges and then took delivery of the cocoanuts at the places of destination. There was no evidence before the Sales Tax Authority, adduced by either side, to show th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sales Tax Authority and to request that a case may be stated for the decision of the High Court (see Sections 23 and 24), it was not appropriate to invoke the powers of this Court under Article 226. On this larger question we wish to reserve our opinion because it appears that by the order of this Court dated 29th August, 1952, while admitting this petition, the petitioner was led to think that after the disposal of its appeal by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax this petition would be put up for final hearing. The petitioner can therefore reasonably contend that it was misled by this order into thinking that after the failure of its appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Authority it could press for the hearing of this petition instead ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Bombay. The question was whether the Government of Bombay could levy sales tax in respect of those transactions of sale in which delivery of the cars took place outside the State of Bombay. The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative as will be clear from the following observations: "On the construction we have placed upon the Explanation, sales or purchases effected in Bombay in respect of goods in Bombay but delivered for consumption outside Bombay are not taxable in Bombay." These observations would apply with full force in the present case in view of the admitted position that though the transaction of sale took (1) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 133; A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 252. place in Orissa, the cocoanuts were actually delivered outside....