Sri Ramayan Harijan Vs. State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [p.b. gajendragadkar, c.j.,; k.n. wanchoo,; n. rajagopala ayyangar,; j.c. shah, jj.] the appellants were carrying on the business of growing and manufacturing tea in their estates. the sellers of tea were the appellants; the purchasers were local agents of foreign buyers. the sales were by public auction at fort cochin. they were conducted by brokers of tea. the sales were in conformity with the provisions of tea act of 1953. the sales-tax officer assessed the appellants to pay sales tax on transactions of sale of tea chests at the auctions held at fort cochin in the -years 1956-57 to 1958-59. against the orders of assessment the appellants filed petitions before the high court for writs of certiorari and for writs of prohibition re-straining the sales-tax officer from proceeding with the collection of sales tax. the petitions were dismissed by the high court. with special leave the appellants appealed to this court. it was the common case of all the appellants that the pur- chases by the local agent of foreign buyers were with a view to export the goods to their principals abroad and that the goods were in fact exported out of india. it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the sales of tea were "in the course of export out of the territory of india", and thus exempt from taxation under art. 286(1)(b) ,of the constitution. held: (per gajendragadkar, c. j., shah and sikri, jj.) (i) a transaction of sale which occasions export, or which is effected by a transfer of documents of title after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers, is exempt under art. 286(1)(b) of the constitution from sales tax levied under any state legislation. a transaction of sale which is a preliminary to export of the commodity sold may be regarded as a sale for export, but is not necessarily to be regarded as one in the course of export, unless the sale occasions export. etymological the expression "in the course of export", contemplates an integral relation or bond between the sale and the export. in general where a sale is effected by the seller, and the seller is not connected with the export which actually takes place, it is a sale for export. where the export is the result of sale, the export being inextricably linked up with sale so that the bond cannot be dissociated without a breach of the obligations arising by statute. contract of mutual understanding between the parties arising from the nature of the transaction the sale is in the course of export. (ii) a sale in the course of export predicates a connection between the sale and export, the two activities being so in- tegrated that the connection between the two cannot be voluntarily interrupted, without a breach of the contract or the compulsion arising from the nature of the transaction. in the present case there was between the sale and the export no such bond as would justify the inference that the sale and the export formed parts of a single transaction or that the sale and export were integrally connected. the appellants were not concerned with the actual exportation of the goods, and the sales were intended to be complete without the export, and as such it cannot be said that the said sales occasioned export. the sales were therefore for export and not in the course of export. therefore the sales by the appellant to the agents of foreign buyers do not come with the purview of art. 286(1)(b) of the constitution. state of travancore-cochin v. bombay company ltd.. [1952] s.c.r. 1112, distinguished. state of travancore-cochin v.shanmugha vilas cashew nut factory, [1954] s.c.r. 53, state of madras v. gurviah naidu and company ltd. a.i.r. 1956 s.c. 158, state of mysore v. mysore shipping and manufacturing co. ltd. 13 s.t.c. 529 and b.k. wadear v. m/s. daulatram rameshwarlal [1951] 1 s.c.r. 924, relied on. m. r. k. abdul salem and company v. government of madras, 13 s.t.c. 629, explained. per ayyangar, j. in the present case the sale and the export being related to each other in the sense of one lead-. in.- to the other are therefore within art. 286(1)(b) of the constitution. there could be no difference in legal effect between a sale to a foreign buyer present in india to take delivery of the goods for transport to his country and a sale to his resident agent for that purpose. the buyer was an agent, who was not free to deal with the tea purchased by effecting a local sale, but was under an obligation to his foreign principal to export the goods purchased to a foreign destination. the goods purchased were in fact -exported from this country. it was with such a buyer that the appellants entered into the transaction of sale. in other words it was a part of understanding between the seller and the buyer, inferrable from all the circumstances attendant on these transactions that the buyer was bound to export. state of travancore-cochin v. shanmugha vilas cashew [1954] s.c.r. 53, state of madras v. gurviah naidu and co. ltd. a.i.r. 1956 s.c. 158,state of mysore v. mysore spinning and manufacturing co. ltd. a.i.r. 1958 s.c. 1002 and east india tobacco co. v. the state of andhra pradesh, [1963]1 s.c.r. 404, referred to. (ii) even though the tea act does not in terms prohibit in- ternal sale of tea 'purchased alongwith export quota rights, this could be explained by the circumstance that the rights to export tea is considered a privilege which secures an economic advantage to the exporter and hence there was no need for any statutory compulsion to do so. l/p(d) isci--23(a).... - we cannot accept this submission because apart from the question whether brass rods are an essential commodity, the detention order has been passed for maintenance of supplies as well as services essential to the community.y.v. chandrachud, j.1. by an order dated. 29th october 1971 the district magistrate, 24-paraganas, west bengal, directed that the petitioner be detained under the maintenance of internal security act, 26 of 1971, with a view to preventing him from acting in. any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. the petitioner was arrested on 4th november 1971 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on the same date. the representation made by the petitioner was received by the government on 19th november, 1971 and was rejected on 1st december 1971. on the decision, of the advisory board dated 13th january 1672 the detention order was confirmed by the government on 19th january, 1972. the correctness of the detention order is challenged by the petitioner by this petition 'under article 32 of the constitution.2. it is contended that the petitioner was in jail on 29th october 1971 when the detention order was passed, that he was then being prosecuted in respect of the same incidents for which the order of detention was passed and therefore the detention is mala fide. in support of this contention our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel to a, decision in maledath bharathan malyali v. the commr. of police : air1950bom202 . this decision, in our opinion, has no application because the detention order was passed in that case while the case was still under investigation. the affidavit filed by sub-inspector manoranjan ghosal in our case shows. that the petitioner was caught red-handed and was arrested on 20th october 1971 and that he was immediately put up before a magistrate for charges under sections 379, 411 and 461 of the indian penal code. the affidavit further shows that witnesses were unwilling to come forward in that case and therefore it was considered expedient not to proceed with the trial. the investigating officer therefore requested the learned magistrate to discharge the petitioner and it was in anticipation ox the order of discharge that the present order of detention was passed on 29th october 1971. in mohd. salim khan v. shri c.c. bose : 1972crilj1020 , deputy secretary to the government of west bengal it was held by tills court that the mere fact that the detenu was discharged in a criminal case does not mean that a valid order of detention could not be passed against him in connection with those very incidents or that such an order can be characterised as mala fide.3. there is no substance in the submission that the state government had no right to consider the representation made by the petitioner as that right exclusively belongs to the advisory board. the detention order was passed under the maintenance of internal security act, 26 of 1971 and section 8(1) thereof provides that the detaining authority shall, as soon as may be, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the detention order has been made so as to afford him the earliest opportunity to make a representation to the appropriate government. it would be pointless to give to the detenu the right to make a representation to the government unless the government is entitled to consider that representation. it is also difficult to understand how the petitioner has been prejudiced by reason of the fact that his representation was considered by the state government.4. one of the grounds on which the petitioner was detained is that he attacked a goods wagon loaded with brass rods valued, at rs. 50,000/-, with the object of committing theft. it is urged that brass rods are not an essential commodity, and therefore the order of detention could not have been passed as it purports to have been passed for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. we cannot accept this submission because apart from the question whether brass rods are an essential commodity, the detention order has been passed for maintenance of supplies as well as services essential to the community. breaking open goods-wagons is bound to cause disruption in the maintenance of services essential to the community.5. in the result the petition is dismissed.