{"id":127049,"date":"1976-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976"},"modified":"2017-04-04T10:52:10","modified_gmt":"2017-04-04T05:22:10","slug":"english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976","title":{"rendered":"English Electric Company Of India &#8230; vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer &#8230; on 21 September, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">English Electric Company Of India &#8230; vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer &#8230; on 21 September, 1976<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR   19, \t\t  1977 SCR  (1) 631<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/09\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR   19\t\t  1977 SCR  (1) 631\n 1976 SCC  (4) 460\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1981 SC1604\t (13,14)\n F\t    1985 SC1754\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Sale--Contract  for sale of goods,\twhether\t inter-State\n\tsale  or intra-State sale  ....\t Ingredients--Central  Sales\n\tTax Act--Section 3(a).\n\t    Privity of contract--When a company has several branches\n\tand  there  is a contract between the buyer and one  of\t the\n\tbranches,  the contract of sale is between the\tcompany\t and\n\tthe buyer.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t     The  appellant company having its registered  office  at\n\tCalcutta,  with\t branches at Bombay, Delhi, Lucknow,  has  a\n\tprincipal  factory-Cum-branch  at  Madras.  The\t  registered\n\toffice\tand the various branches are registered\t as  dealers\n\tboth under the Central Sales Tax Act and the local Sales Tax\n\tActs.  The  appellant company in respect of  the  assessment\n\tyear  1965-66, did not include a sum of Rs. 21.88,540.41  in\n\tits turnover in the return filed under the Central Sales Tax\n\tAct  on the ground that the turnover represented sales\tout-\n\tside the State of Madras.  The said sale related to a Bombay\n\tbuyer  who  placed the order with the Bombay branch  of\t the\n\tappellant  company after it was informed by the said  branch\n\tin  consultation  with the Madras branch  factory  that\t the\n\tprice  was  f.o.r. Madras at the buyer's risk and  that\t the\n\tdelivery  would\t be ex-works, Madras. The Bombay  buyer\t was\n\talso  informed by the Bombay branch of all the\tparticulars,\n\tcondition of sale, the fact that the goods would be manufac-\n\ttured at the Madras branch factory and would be supplied  by\n\tthe  Madras Branch etc. as advised by the Madras  branch  to\n\tthe Bombay branch.  The respondent treated it as inter-State\n\tsale under s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and issued a\n\tnotice\tof demand whereupon the appellant filed an  applica-\n\ttion  under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Madras\tHigh\n\tCourt  praying\tfor a writ of  Prohibition  restraining\t the\n\trespondents from taxing and\/or including in the turnover for\n\tthe purposes of assessment for the year 1965-66.  The\tsaid\n\tpetition  was dismissed.\n\tDismissing the appeals by certificate, the Court.\n\t    HELD: (1) When the movement of the goods from one  State\n\tto  another is an incident of the contract it is a  sale  in\n\tthe course of inter-State sale.\t It does not matter in which\n\tState the property in the goods passes.\t What is decisive is\n\twhether\t the  sale is one which occasioned the\tmovement  of\n\tgoods from one State to another.  'the inter-State  movement\n\tmust be the result of a covenant, express or implied in\t the\n\tcontract of sate or an incident of the contract.  It is\t not\n\tnecessary  that the sale must precede the inter-State  move-\n\tment in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned\n\tsuch  movement.\t It is also not necessary for a sale  to  be\n\tdeemed\tto  have taken place in the  course  of\t inter-State\n\ttrade or .commerce, that.the covenant regarding\t inter-State\n\tmovement must be specified in the contract itself.  It\twill\n\tbe enough if the movement is in pursuance of 2nd  incidental\n\tto the contract of sale.  [634D-E]\n\t(2)  Branches  have  no\t independent  and  separate  entity.\n\tBranches are  different agencies.  In the instant case,\t the\n\tcontract  of sale is  between the appellant company and\t the\n\tBombay buyer.  [634C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tCIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:\t Civil\t Appeal\t  No.\t1838<br \/>\n\tof 1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWrit Petition Nos. 483-487 of 1974<br \/>\n\t    (From  the Judgment and Order dated 2nd August  1968  of<br \/>\n\tthe Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 416\/67).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t632<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\tCivil Appeal No. 608 of 1973<br \/>\n\t     (From  the Judgment and Order dated 11th April 1972  of<br \/>\n\tthe Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 44\/72).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     K.S.  Ramamurthi,\tV. Nataraj, C.\tNatarajan  and\tD.N.<br \/>\n\tGupta for the appellant\/petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tS.T. Desai for RR. 1 &amp; 2 in CA 1838\/69 and Writ petitions.<br \/>\n\tA. V. Rangam and Miss A. Subhashini, for respondents  in  CA<br \/>\n\t608\/73.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     S.N. Prasad, R.N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra, for R. 3<br \/>\n\tin CA 1838 of 1969 and Writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    D.N. Mukherjee, G.S. Chatterjee and D.P. Mukherjee,\t for<br \/>\n\trespondent No. 4 in writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    S.C.  Manchanda and O.P. Rana, for respondent No.  5  in<br \/>\n\tWrit petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    M.C.  Bhandare and M.N. Shroff, for respondent No.\t6  in<br \/>\n\tWrit petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Judgment of, the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n\tRAY,  C.J.   These two appeals by certificate and  the\twrit<br \/>\n\tpetitions turn on the question whether the contract for sale<br \/>\n\tof goods was an inter-State sale or an intra-State sale.<br \/>\n\t    The appellant is a company having its registered  office<br \/>\n\tat  Calcutta. &#8216;There are branches at Bombay,  Delhi,  Madras<br \/>\n\tand Lucknow. The main factory is at Madras.<br \/>\n\t    In order to appreciate the real controversy it is neces-<br \/>\n\tsary to refer to the facts of one of the Civil Appeals as  a<br \/>\n\tpattern of transaction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    In\tCivil  Appeal No. 1838 of 1969 Asha Metal  Works  of<br \/>\n\tBombay\treferred to as the Bombay buyer wrote to the  Bombay<br \/>\n\tbranch\tof  the\t appellant asking for  lowest  quotation  of<br \/>\n\tcertain\t goods.\t The Madras branch which has  the  principal<br \/>\n\tfactctory  there for manufacture of goods was written to  by<br \/>\n\tthe  Bombay branch.  The Madras branch wrote to\t the  Bombay<br \/>\n\tbranch quoting the prices F.O.R. Madras.  The Bombay  branch<br \/>\n\tthen  wrote to the Bombay buyer that the&#8217; price\t was  F.O.R.<br \/>\n\tMadras\tand delivery would be ex-works Madras.\t The  Bombay<br \/>\n\tbuyer thereupon placed the order with the Bombay branch.<br \/>\n\t    On these facts counsel for the appellant contended\tthat<br \/>\n\tthe  sale was at Bombay inasmuch as the Bombay buyer  placed<br \/>\n\tthe firm order at Bombay, payment was to be made at  Bombay,<br \/>\n\trailway receipt was in the name of the Bombay branch and the<br \/>\n\tgoods  were  to be delivered at Bombay.\t It  was  emphasised<br \/>\n\tthat  there  was no contract or privity between\t the  Madras<br \/>\n\tbranch\tand the Bombay buyer- but the privity was only\twith<br \/>\n\tthe Bombay branch.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t633<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    The only question is whether the sale was an inter-State<br \/>\n\tsale or a sale at Bombay.  If the movement of the goods from<br \/>\n\tMadras\tto  Bombay was an incident of or occasioned  by\t the<br \/>\n\tsale  itself it would be taxable under section 3(a)  of\t the<br \/>\n\tCentral Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    There  was\tnot and there could not be any\tcontract  of<br \/>\n\tsale  between the factory of the seller appellant at  Madras<br \/>\n\tbranch and the Bombay branch of the appellant.\tIt is  obvi-<br \/>\n\tous that the Bombay branch is the agent of the seller appel-<br \/>\n\tlant.\tThe appellant could not be the buyer as well as\t the<br \/>\n\tseller.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      The contention of the appellant is that the goods were<br \/>\n\tsent  by the factory at Madras branch to the  Bombay  branch<br \/>\n\tand  thereafter the goods were sold by the Bombay branch  to<br \/>\n\tthe Bombay buyer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    The\t sale  as  well as the movement of  the\t goods\tfrom<br \/>\n\tMadras to Bhandup at Bombay was a part of the same  transac-<br \/>\n\ttion.  The movement of the goods from Madras to Bhandup\t was<br \/>\n\tintegrated  with  the  contract of sale\t for  the  following<br \/>\n\treasons.   The\tBombay\tbranch received the  Bombay  buyer&#8217;s<br \/>\n\torder and sent the same to the Madras branch factory.\tWhen<br \/>\n\tthe Bombay buyer asked\tfor  quotation\tof prices the Bombay<br \/>\n\tbranch wrote to the Madras branch and gave all the  specifi-<br \/>\n\tcations\t and stated that the &#8216;goods were  for\tthe   Bombay<br \/>\n\tbuyer.\tThe Madras branch in reply referred to the order  of<br \/>\n\tthe  Bombay buyer and gave particulars mentioning  that\t the<br \/>\n\tprice was F.O.R. Madras.  The Bombay branch thereafter wrote<br \/>\n\tto the Bombay buyer reproducing all the particulars,  condi-<br \/>\n\ttions  of sale and mode of despatch as stated by  the,Madras<br \/>\n\tbranch and further stated that the goods -would be  manufac-<br \/>\n\ttured at the Madras branch factory.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt  is important to note that all prices were  shown  F.O.R.<br \/>\n\tMadras\tand  it was further stated that all goods  would  be<br \/>\n\tdespatched  at the risk of the Bombay buyer.  It is in\tthis<br \/>\n\tcontext\t that  the Bombay buyer on 27 May,  1964  placed  an<br \/>\n\torder  with  the Bombay branch accepting all the  terms\t and<br \/>\n\tconditions.  The  Bombay branch placed an indent  order\t ad-<br \/>\n\tdressed to the Madras branch giving all the particulars\t and<br \/>\n\tstated the buyer&#8217;s name as Asha Metal Works, Bombay and gave<br \/>\n\tthe customer&#8217;s order number and the date viz., 27 May, 1964.<br \/>\n\tThe  goods were to be invoiced to the Bombay branch and\t the<br \/>\n\tgoods were to be despatched F.O.R. Madras.<br \/>\n\t    The Bombay branch wrote to the Bombay buyer on 28 August<br \/>\n\t1964  that they had received an invoice from the factory  at<br \/>\n\tthe Madras &#8216;branch that some of the goods against the  order<br \/>\n\tof  the\t Bombay buyer were ready for despatch.\t The  Bombay<br \/>\n\tbranch\tasked the Bombay buyer to give the details  of\tdes-<br \/>\n\tpatch  and insurance instructions per return of\t post.\t The<br \/>\n\tBombay branch thereafter wrote to the Madras branch  factory<br \/>\n\tstating &#8220;Please despatch the equipment covered by our above&#8217;<br \/>\n\tindent by goods train to Bhandup Railway Stastion freight to<br \/>\n\tpay.  The Railway Receipt and other documents to be sent  to<br \/>\n\tus for disposal&#8221;.  The Madras branch factory despatched\t the<br \/>\n\tgoods from Madras to Bombay by goods train and gave  intima-<br \/>\n\ttion to the Bombay &#8216;branch.  The goods were delivered to the<br \/>\n\tBombay buyer at Bhandup through clearing agents.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t634<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    The goods were despatched from Madras at the risk of the<br \/>\n\tbuyer  to  Bombay.   The goods were  insured  and  insurance<br \/>\n\tcharges\t  were\tcollected  from the buyer  at  Bombay.\t The<br \/>\n\tfreight\t charged  from\tMadras to Bombay was  borne  by\t the<br \/>\n\tbuyer.\t The movement of the goods from Madras was an  inci-<br \/>\n\tdent of the contract of sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    Counsel  for the appellant contended that there was\t  no<br \/>\n\tprivity\t between the Madras branch and the Bombay buyer\t but<br \/>\n\tthat the privity was only between the Madras branch and\t the<br \/>\n\tBombay\tbranch. It was also said that the Bombay branch\t was<br \/>\n\tan  independent\t and separate entity and the direct contract<br \/>\n\twas   between  the  Bombay branch and the Bombay  buyer\t and<br \/>\n\tthe Madras  factory  were not parties to the contract.<br \/>\n\t    The\t appellant has branches at different  places.\t The<br \/>\n\tappellant  company is one entity and it carries on  business<br \/>\n\tat  different  branches. Branches have\tno  independent\t and<br \/>\n\tseparate   entity.  Branches  are different  agencies.\t The<br \/>\n\tcontract  of sale is between the appellant company  and\t the<br \/>\n\tBombay buyer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    The appellant in the present case sent the goods  direct<br \/>\n\tfrom the Madras branch factory to the Bombay buyer at Bhand-<br \/>\n\tup,  Bombay.  The  railway receipt was in the  name  of\t the<br \/>\n\tBombay branch to secure payment against delivery.  There was<br \/>\n\tno question of diverting   the goods which were sent to\t the<br \/>\n\tBombay\tbuyer. When the movement of goods from one State  to<br \/>\n\tanother\t is an incident of the contract it is a sale in\t the<br \/>\n\tcourse\tof  inter-State sale.  It does not  mater  in  which<br \/>\n\tState the property in the goods passes. What is decisive  is<br \/>\n\twhether\t the  sale is one which occasions  the\tmovement  of<br \/>\n\tgoods from one State another.  The inter-State movement must<br \/>\n\tbe  the\t result of a covenant, express or  implied,  in\t the<br \/>\n\tcontract  of  sale or an incident of the tract.\t It  is\t not<br \/>\n\tnecessary  that the sale must precede the inter-State  move-<br \/>\n\tment in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned<br \/>\n\t,such  movement.  It is also not necesary for a sale  to  be<br \/>\n\tdeemed\thave taken place in the course of inter-State  trade<br \/>\n\tor  commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State  move-<br \/>\n\tment  must be specified in the contract itself.\t It will  be<br \/>\n\tenough if the movement is in pursuance and incidental to the<br \/>\n\tcontract of sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    When  a branch of a company forward a buyer&#8217;s ,order  to<br \/>\n\tthe  principal factory of the company and instructs them  to<br \/>\n\tdespatch  the  goods direct to the buyer and the  goods\t are<br \/>\n\tsent to the buyer under\t those instructions it would not  be<br \/>\n\ta  sale\t between  factory and its  branch.&#8217; If\tthere  is  a<br \/>\n\tconceivable  link between the movement of the goods and\t the<br \/>\n\tbuyer&#8217;s contract, and if in the course of inter-State  move-<br \/>\n\tment the goods move. only to reach the buyer in satisfaction<br \/>\n\tof  his contract of purchase and such a nexus  is  otherwise<br \/>\n\tinexplicable,  then the sale or purchase of the specific  or<br \/>\n\tascertained  goods  ought to be deemed to  have\t been  taken<br \/>\n\tplace in the course of inter-State trade or commerce as such<br \/>\n\ta sale or purchase occasioned the movement of the goods from<br \/>\n\tone State to another.  The presence of an intermediary\tsuch<br \/>\n\tas  the\t seller&#8217;s own representative or branch\toffice,\t who<br \/>\n\tinitiated  the contract may not make the  matter  different.<br \/>\n\tSuch an interception by a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t635<\/span><br \/>\n\tknown  person on behalf of the seller in the delivery  State<br \/>\n\tand such person&#8217;s activities prior to or after the implemen-<br \/>\n\ttation of the contract may not alter the position.<br \/>\n\t    The\t steps taken from the beginning to the end  by\t the<br \/>\n\tBombay branch in co-ordination with the Madras factory\tshow<br \/>\n\tthat the Bombay branch was merely acting as the intermediary<br \/>\n\tbetween\t the  Madras factory and the buyer and that  it\t was<br \/>\n\tthe  Madras  factory which pursuant to the covenant  in\t the<br \/>\n\tcontract  of  sale  caused the movement of  the\t goods\tfrom<br \/>\n\tMadras\tto Bombay.  The inter-State  movement of  the  goods<br \/>\n\twas  a result of the contract of sale and the fact that\t the<br \/>\n\tcontract  emanated from correspondence which passed  between<br \/>\n\tthe Bombay branch and the company could not make any differ-<br \/>\n\tence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    For\t the foregoing reasons the appeals   are  dismissed.<br \/>\n\tThe  writ petitions are also dismissed.\t There. will  be  no<br \/>\n\torder  as  to costs.  It will be open to  the  appellant  to<br \/>\n\tapply for refund, if any,  if  permissible at law.\n<\/p>\n<pre>\tS.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\n\tdismissed.\n\t9--1234SCI\/76\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t636<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India English Electric Company Of India &#8230; vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer &#8230; on 21 September, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 19, 1977 SCR (1) 631 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: ENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER &amp; ORS. DATE OF [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-127049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>English Electric Company Of India ... vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ... on 21 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"English Electric Company Of India ... vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ... on 21 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-04T05:22:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"English Electric Company Of India &#8230; vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer &#8230; on 21 September, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T05:22:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976\"},\"wordCount\":1747,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976\",\"name\":\"English Electric Company Of India ... vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ... on 21 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T05:22:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"English Electric Company Of India &#8230; vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer &#8230; on 21 September, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"English Electric Company Of India ... vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ... on 21 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"English Electric Company Of India ... vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ... on 21 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-04T05:22:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"English Electric Company Of India &#8230; vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer &#8230; on 21 September, 1976","datePublished":"1976-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T05:22:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976"},"wordCount":1747,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976","name":"English Electric Company Of India ... vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ... on 21 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T05:22:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/english-electric-company-of-india-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-21-september-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"English Electric Company Of India &#8230; vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer &#8230; on 21 September, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=127049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}