1960 (11) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd together and a common judgment will suffice. 2.. The question for determination in both the cases is whether when bags of rice are sold the gunny bags concerned attract sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The Tribunal has held that the tax is attracted and it is the correctness of that decision that is challenged before us. 3.. It is not disputed that the rice itself does not attract any tax under the Act. Section 5(vi) of the Act specifically provides that the sale of foodgrains shall be exempt from taxation. 4.. The petitioners had not charged separately for the gunny bags when the bags of rice were sold. There is nothing, however, to indicate that the bags were given free, and that their value did not form part o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. 10.. Every transfer of property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration will come within the definition of the expression "sale" as given in section 2(j) of the Act. There is definitely a transfer of property in these cases in both rice and gunny bags and that in the course of the petitioners' trade or business and for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. 11.. In other words, all the elements necessary to subject the petitioners' turnover in respect of gunny bags to sales tax appear to be present. The turnover cannot be gathered separately from the accounts of the petitioners and has been estimated at Rs. 74,908-2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. The over-all picture, however, is clear and in support of the contention urged by the Department. 14.. Counsel for the petitioners also drew our attention to two works contract cases under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd.[1958] 9 S.T.C. 353; A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 560., Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Madras[1958] 9 S.T.C. 687; A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 33. and to Robinson v. Graves[1935] 1 K.B. 579. The last-mentioned case related to a contract to paint a portrait. All that was held was that such a contract was not a contract for the sale of goods but a contract for work and labour. 15.. The contention apparently is that the rice and the bags form an integrated commodi....