Kalidas Umedram and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another

.....that tobacco was stored for the requisite period, the intention of the assessee and its customers was that the material should from an integral part of the process. since there was no independent contract for the sale of packing material, the fact that tobacco delivered by the constituent was taken away with the packing material would not justify an inference that there was an intention to sell the material. [184 h; 185 a-c] in order that there should be a sale of goods which is liable to sales tax as part of a contract for work, there must be a contract in which there is not merely transfer of title to goods as an incident of the contract, but there must be a contract, express or implied, for sale of the very goods which the parties intended should be sold for a money consideration. from the mere passing of title to goods, whether as an integral part of or independent of goods, it cannot be inferred that the goods were agreed to he sold and that the price was liable to sales tax. [181 g-h; 183 c] case law reviewed. per subba rao, j. (dissenting) : there was nothing on the record to show that after packing the packed tobacco was retained in the factory for the completion of the redrying process. packing, therefore, was not an integral part of the redrying process. once the idea of packing being a part of the redrying process is eliminated, the transaction qua the packing material involved either a contract of agency, gift or sale, and on the facts, a contract of sale was necessarily implied. as all the ingredients of the charging section read with the definition of "sale", were satisfied, the, sales tax authorities rightly assessed the turnover in regard to the packing material. [171 d; 174 f-h, 177 a, c] case law reviewed. - therefore, the cancellation of the grant is bad in law. having obtained the grant or permission, appellants cannot convert the land into non-agricultural use as well as for building houses, the sale of government land for nominal..........sell the land admeasuring 3000 sq. yd. to different person. on that basis, the grant was cancelled, when the appellants had filed the proceedings before the authorities challenging the validity of the action taken, the district collector found as a fact that though the appellant had filed an application for permission to use the land for non-agricultural purpose, no order was passed and he had been selling the land for building purpose in contravention of the grant made in his favour. accordingly, he upheld the order cancelling the allotment of 2 acres 9 guntas of land in survey no. 152 situated in village rakhyal city taluk ahmedabad. appeal was dismissed by the state government and in revision under article 227, as stated earlier, the high court dismissed it summarily.2. shri ganpule, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that under proviso to section 65 of the bombay land revenue code, if the permission is not granted within three months from the date of the receipt of the application or in the manner contemplated thereunder, permission must be deemed to have been granted. therefore, the cancellation of the grant is bad in law. he also contended that cancellation should have been only to the extent of the contravention of the grant and not of the entire extent of the land.3. we find no force in any of the contentions. it is true that the proviso envisages permission if the collector does not grant permission within three months from the date of the receipt of the application excluding the time as specified taken thereunder. but the condition is that user must be always for an agricultural or non-agricultural, purpose. in other words, land should be used for raising commercial crops but not for industrial purposes or for building purposes. deemed permission would not be a free licence to use the land for any other purpose defeating the object of the grant. the public policy behind the grant is to augment agricultural production so as to.....