TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (4) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 105 of 1952. By an order dated the 17th April, 1953, the Board of Revenue was asked to state sufficient facts to enable this Court to decide the question of law referred to this Court. This Court set aside the order of the Board refusing to state the case and required it to state it and refer all ques- tions of law arising out of its order dated the 14th December, 1951. Such questions of law were also indicated. 4.. In compliance with the order of this Court, the Board of Revenue has stated the case and referred for decision all the questions of law arising out of its order dated the 14th December, 1951. This statement of the case covers the questions of law raised in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 105 of 1952. 5.. The questions of law referred to this Court are: "(i) Whether despatches of goods after the Act came into force against orders received prior to the Act are in law sales within sec- tion 2(g) of the Act; (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods despatched outside the State can in law be regarded as sales within section 2(g) of the Act read with Explanation 11; (3) Whether these provisions are ultra vires the Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The firm in its return had shown a total turnover of Rs. 6,79,699-12-0. The despatches for which particulars were supplied were as under:- Method Value of goods Rs. (i) Through bank ... ..........2,76,997 14 0 (ii) By V.P.P. ... ...................13,067 11 0 (iii) By credit system ......... 2,07,729 1 0 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s there is anything repugnant to the subject or context. At the commencement of the Act there must have been a large number of labour-cum-material contracts outstanding and it would have been a great hardship to such contractors to have to pay sales tax which they were not likely to recover from the owners. That was not the case with the sale of merchandise. We are therefore of the opinion that the proviso to sec- tion 4 is inapplicable to the instant case. 9.. The second and third questions can be answered together. In Messrs. Shriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue(1) it was held that Explana- tion II to section 2 (g) as appearing in the original Act is intra vires and that the Explanation as amended by Act XVI of 1949 was not validly enacted. Explanation II as it originally stood applies to the instant case. It runs thus: "Notwithstanding to the contrary in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the sale of any goods which are actually in the Central Provinces and Berar at the time when the contract of sale as defined in that Act in respect thereof is made, shall, wherever the said contract of sale is made, be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have taken place in the Central Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged. In order to deliver the goods to the railway as carrier for the buyer, the seller has to do the packing and transportation to the railway station, and on the facts in the instant case delivery did not take place till the goods were delivered to the railway for carriage, According (1)[1952] 3 S.T.C. 343; I.L.R. 1953 Nag. 332. to the assessee, he had agreed with the purchasers to charge them for the packing and transport to the railway station in addition to the price, but this charge was for things to be done by the dealer in respect of the goods before delivery thereof; and consequently it would be included in the sale price unless this cost of delivery is separately charged. In the statement of the case it is stated: "These charges as per invoices on record are included in the sale price and are covered by the charges for anything done in respect of goods until delivery." In view of these facts, the packing charges, hamali and cartage in the instant case were rightly included in the sale price. N.C. Palia and Sons v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses a condition of payment of the tax with penalty, if any, before an appeal is admitted. As stated in Shrikisan v. Dattu(4), a person has no inherent right of appeal. It must be given by an express enactment and that is the scheme of all Acts, civil or criminal. The right, which is the creature of statute, is limited to the extent permitted by it. As the right of appeal is not an inherent right, it cannot come under the category of fundamental rights. It is therefore open to the Legislature to impose limitations on the right of appeal. 16.. It is next contended that the proceedings under section 23(1) of the Sales Tax Act could not be heard by a Member of the Board sitting alone when the order passed under sub-section (5) of section 22 which gave occasion for the reference was passed by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. Reliance is placed on rule 8. It provides that any matter directly affecting the revenue of the Province in which the Advocate-General or Government Advocate appears shall be placed before and heard and decided by a Bench of two or more Members as directed by the President. From a perusal of section 7 of the Board of Revenue Act and the rules framed ther....