{"id":193786,"date":"1965-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-12-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965"},"modified":"2017-02-08T19:45:54","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T14:15:54","slug":"ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1153, \t\t 1966 SCR (2) 845<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM\/S.  CARONA SAHU CO.  LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/12\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1153\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 845\n\n\nACT:\nBombay\tSales-tax  Act (3 of 1953), ss,.  10(a),  10-C-Goods\nshipped from Cochin under bill of lading at risk of buyer in\nBombay but deliverable to buyer only on payment of price  to\nbankers-Property in goods whether passes to buyer in  Cochin\nor  in Bombay-Goods whether liable to purchase tax under  s.\n10(a)-Section 10-C whether applies.\nSale of Goods Act (3 of 1930), s. 25(2)-Passing of  property\nwhen goods shipped under bill of lading.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant-company, a manufacturer of footwear in Bombay,\npurchased rubber from certain dealers residing in the  State\nof  Cochin.   The goods were shipped by the  Cochin  sellers\nfrom  Cochin  to Bombay under bills of lading in  which\t the\nsellers\t themselves were named as consignees.  The  invoices\nhowever\t showed that the goods were shipped at the  risk  of\nthe appellant which was to pay insurance as well as  freight\nand  other charges.  For the period April 1, 1954  to  March\n31,  1955, the appellant was assessed to purchase tax  under\ns.  10(a)  of  the Bombay Sales-tax Act (3  of\t1953).\t The\nappellant's  appeal  under s. 30 of the Act  failed.   In  a\nreference under s. 34(1) of the Act the High Court held that\nthe  property was intended by the parties to pass in  Bombay\nand the appellant was liable to purchase tax.  The appellant\nthen came to this Court by special leave.\nIt  was\t contended on behalf of the appellant that  (1)\t the\nproperty  in  the  rubber consignments\thad  passed  to\t the\nappellant  in  Cochin,\t(2) the term 'person'  in  s.  10(a)\nshould be read as meaning a 'dealer who carries on  business\nin Bombay but who is not registered under the Act and (3) s.\n10-C  and  not\ts.  10(a) applied  to  the  transactions  in\nquestion.\nHELD  : (i) The ordinary rule that unascertained  goods\t are\nunconditionally\t appropriated to the contract  and  property\npasses to the buyer on the delivery of the said goods to the\ncommon\tcarrier,  does not apply to cases  where  goods\t are\nshipped under a bill of lading.\t In the latter case delivery\nby  the\t seller\t is not delivery to the\t buyer\tbut  to\t the\nCaptain\t of  the ship as bailor for delivery to\t the  person\nindicated  in the bill of lading.  The seller may  take\t the\nbill  of  lading  to his own order.  The effect\t of  such  a\ntransaction  would  be\tto control  the\t possession  of\t the\nCaptain\t as bailee and make him accountable for delivery  of\nthe  goods to the seller.  The seller thus keeps to  himself\nthe right of demanding possession from the Captain and\tthis\nis  consistent even with a special term that the, goods\t are\nshipped on account of and at the risk of the buyer.  Section\n25 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act itself states that  where\ngoods  shipped\tare  and  by the bill  of  lading  they\t are\ndeliverable  to\t the order of the seller or his\t agent,\t the\nseller\tis  prima  facie  deemed to  reserve  the  right  of\ndisposal. [848 E-G]\nGabarron v. Kreeft. (1875) L.R. 10 Ex. 274, referred to.\nThe  fact  that the goods were shipped at the  risk  of\t the\nbuyer would not necessarily imply that property in the goods\nhad passed to the\n846\nbuyer,\tThe endorsement to that effect in the  invoice\tonly\nindicated that the insurance charges were to be paid by\t the\nappellant.   The  clause had no bearing on the\tquestion  of\npassing of title. [849 G-H]\nShephered v. Harrison, 1871 L.R. (V) H.L. 116, relied on.\n(ii) There is nothing in the context or language of s. 10(a)\nfor importing any qualification on the plain meaning of\t the\nword  'person' in that section.\t The section plainly  states\nthat  purchases made by a dealer from a person who is not  a\nregistered  dealer  will be subject to\tpurchase  tax.\t The\nappellant  was\ta dealer and it had made  the  purchases  in\nquestion from sellers who were not registered dealers.\t The\nprovisions  of\ts.  10(a)  of  the  Act\t were  thus  clearly\nattracted and the purchases were liable to tax. [852 F]\n(iii) The contention that s. 10-C governed the\ttransactions\nin question could not be sustained.  Section 10-C reproduces\nthe  Explanation to Art. 286(1)(a) of the  Constitution\t and\nwould  apply  only where under general law  the\t sale  takes\nplace  outside\tthe State but the goods are delivered  as  a\ndirect\tresult of the sale for consumption within the  State\nof Bombay. [853 B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1964.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nApril  23,  1962  of  the Bombay High  Court  in  Sales\t Tax
\nReference No. 18 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
S.   B.\t Donde, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K.  R.  Chaudhuri,
\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
C.   B. Agarwala, R. Ganapathy lyer, B. R. G. K. Achar, and
\nR.   H. Dhebar, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRamaswami, L This appeal is brought by Special Leave against
\nthe judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated
\nApril  23,  1962  on a reference by  the  Bombay  Sales\t Tax
\nTribunal under S. 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.
\nThe  appellant\tis  a manufacturer of  footwear\t in  Bombay.
\nDuring the assessment year April 1, 1954 to March 31,  1955,
\nthe appellant purchased rubber from certain dealers residing
\nin  the State of Cochin.  These purchases were\tassessed  to
\npurchase  tax by the Sales Tax Officer under S. 1 0  (a)  of
\nthe Bombay Sales Tax Act (Bombay Act III of 1953-hereinafter
\nreferred to as the Act) as they were made “from a person who
\nis  not a registered dealer”.  The Cochin sellers had  their
\nagents\tin  Bombay  who received orders\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant.  The orders of the appellant were accepted by the
\nagents\tin Bombay and the goods were shipped by the  sellers
\nfrom  Cochin to Bombay.\t After the goods were  shipped,\t the
\ndemand drafts were forwarded along with the
\n\t\t\t    847<\/span>
\nBills  of Lading by the vendors to their bankers in  Bombay.
\nThe bankers endorsed the bill of lading in Bombay and handed
\nit  over to purchasers in Bombay in exchange for the  price.
\nThe  price was also paid in Bombay.  In the Bills of  Lading
\nthe sellers in, Cochin were described as both consignors and
\nconsignees.   After the goods were shipped, an\tinvoice\t was
\ndrawn  on the appellant in which were printed the  following
\nwords :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Shipped per S.S…………… from Cochin to
\n\t      Bombay  on account and risk of  Messrs  Carona
\n\t      Sahu Co. Ltd., 15-A, Elphinstone Circle, Fort,
\n\t      Bombay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
For  the  period  April\t 1, 1954  to  March  31,  1955,\t the
\nappellant  was\tassessed to purchase tax by  the  Sales\t Tax
\nOfficer,  Licence  Circle, Bombay by  his  assessment  order
\ndated March 31, 1956, under cl. (a) of s. 10 of the Act; The
\nappellant preferred an appeal under s. 30 of the Act to\t the
\nAssistant Collector of Sales Tax, Appeals 11, Bombay Circle,
\nBombay but it was dismissed.  A revision application to\t the
\nAdditional  Collector  of  Sales  Tax  was  dismissed.\t The
\nappellant thereafter moved the Sales Tax Appellate  Tribunal
\nat Bombay for revision of the order passed by the Additional
\nCollector of Sales Tax.\t By its judgment dated September  4,
\n1959  the Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed  the  revision
\napplication  and confirmed the order made by the  Sales\t Tax
\nauthorities.   At the instance of the appellant,  the  Sales
\nTax  Tribunal  referred the following questions of  law\t for
\ndecision of’ the Bombay High Court under s. 34(1) of the Act\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.  Whether on the facts and circumstances  of
\n\t      the   case,   the\t property  in\tthe   rubber
\n\t      consignments passed to the applicant in Cochin
\n\t      i.e. outside the State of Bombay ?\n<\/p>\n
\t      2. Whether the purchase tax under s. 10(a)  is
\n\t      leviable\tin  respect  of\t the  purchases\t  in
\n\t      dispute ?\n<\/p>\n
By  its judgment dated April-23, 1962 the Bombay High  Court
\nanswered  both the questions of law in favour of  the  State
\nand’ against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question that arises for determination  in\tthis
\ncase  is,  whether, on the facts and  circumstances  of\t the
\ncase, the property in the rubber consignments passed to\t the
\nappellant  in Cochin i.e. outside the territorial limits  of
\nthe State of Bombay.  In this connection the facts found  by
\nthe Sales Tax Tribunal are that the Cochin sellers had their
\nagents\tin Bombay who received the orders of  the  appellant
\nand arranged for the shipping of the-\n<\/p>\n
848<\/span><\/p>\n
goods.\t In  accordance with these orders  the\tgoods  were,
\nshipped\t by the Cochin sellers from Cochin to  Bombay.\t The
\nBills  of  Lading  were\t in  the  name\tof  the\t sellers  as
\nconsignors and consignees.  The invoices however showed that
\nthe  goods were shipped at the “risk and on account of\tM\/s.
\nCarona Sahu and Company (P) Ltd.” The insurance charges were
\nborne  by  the\tappellant who also paid\t freight  and  other
\ncharges.   The\tbills  of lading were sent  by\tthe  sellers
\nthrough the bank to be delivered to the buyers in Bombay  on
\npayment of the price of the goods.  In view of these  facts,
\nthe  High Court held that the property was intended  by\t the
\nparties to pass in Bombay and the endorsement in the invoice
\nthat the goods were being shipped “on account of and at\t the
\nrisk of the buyers” did not mean anything more than that the
\ninsurance charges were to be paid by the buyers.  On  behalf
\nof  the appellant, Mr. Donde submitted that the property  in
\nthe  rubber  consignments  had passed to  the  appellant  in
\nCochin.\t  In  our  opinion, there is  no  warrant  for\tthis
\nsubmission and the view taken by the High Court is correct.
\nThe  law is well established that in the case of a  contract
\nfor ,sale of unascertained goods the property does not\tpass
\nto    the   purchaser\tunless\t there\t is    unconditional
\nappropriation,\tof the goods in a deliverable state  to\t the
\ncontract.   In the case of such a contract, delivery of\t the
\ngoods\tby   the  vendor  to  the  common  carrier   is\t  an
\nappropriation sufficient to pass the property.\tBut there is
\na  difference in the legal effect of delivering goods  to  a
\ncommon carrier on the one hand and shipment on board a\tship
\nunder  a bill of lading on the other hand.  Where goods\t are
\ndelivered  on  board a vessel to be carried, and a  bill  of
\nlading is taken, the delivery by the seller is not  delivery
\nto  the buyer, but to the captain as bailee for delivery  to
\nthe person indicated by the bill of lading.  ‘The seller may
\ntherefore  take\t the bill of lading to his own\torder.\t The
\neffect\tof this transaction is to control the possession  of
\nthe captain and make the captain accountable to deliver\t the
\ngoods  to  the seller as the holder of the bill\t of  lading.
\nThe  bill  of lading is the symbol of property,\t and  by  so
\ntaking\tthe bill of lading the seller keeps to\thimself\t the
\nright of dealing with property shipped and also the right of
\ndemanding   possession\tfrom  the  captain,  and   this\t  is
\nconsistent  even  with\ta special term that  the  goods\t are
\nshipped\t on  account of and at the risk of  the\t buyer.\t  In
\nGabarron v.    Kreeft(1) Lord Parker laid down the principle
\nas follows
\n\t      “The English cases, however, on which the Sale
\n\t      of Goods Act was founded seem to show that the
\n\t      appro-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   (1875) L.R. 10 Ex. 274.\n<\/p>\n
\t       849<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      priation\twould  not be such as  to  pass\t the
\n\t      property if it appears or can be inferred that
\n\t      there was no actual intention to pass it.\t  If
\n\t      the seller takes the bill of lading to his own
\n\t      order and parts with it to a third person, not
\n\t      the   buyer,   and  that\tthird\tperson,\t  by
\n\t      possession  of  the bill of lading,  gets\t the
\n\t      goods,  the  buyer  is held not  to  have\t the
\n\t      property\tso as to enable him to recover\tfrom
\n\t      the third party, notwithstanding that the\t act
\n\t      of  the  seller  was a  clear  breach  of\t the
\n\t      contract.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Ss. 23 and 25 of the Indian Sale of Goods\t Act
\n\t      are identical in language to the corresponding
\n\t      provisions  of the English Sale of Goods\tAct.
\n\t      S. 25 states as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1) Where there is a contract-for the sale of
\n\t      specific goods or where goods are subsequently
\n\t      appropriated to the contract, the seller\tmay,
\n\t      by the terms of the contract or appropriation,
\n\t      reserve  the  right of disposal of  the  goods
\n\t      until  certain conditions are  fulfilled.\t  In
\n\t      such case, notwithstanding the delivery of the
\n\t      goods  to\t a buyer, or to a carrier  or  other
\n\t      bailee for the purpose of transmission to\t the
\n\t      buyer, the property in the goods does not pass
\n\t      to  the buyer until the conditions imposed  by
\n\t      the seller are fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Where goods are shipped and by the\tbill
\n\t      of  lading  the goods are deliverable  to\t the
\n\t      order  of the seller or his agent, the  seller
\n\t      is prima facie deemed to reserve the right  of
\n\t      disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t       .      .\t     .\t      .\t       .”\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf of the appellant it was contended that the  goods
\nwere shipped “on account and at the risk of Messrs.   Carona
\nSahu and Company (P) Ltd.” and therefore the property in the
\ngoods  must  be\t held to have passed  to  the  appellant  on
\nshipment in Cochin.  We do not think there is any  substance
\nin  this  argument.  The endorsement in the  invoice  merely
\nindicated that the insurance charges were to be paid by\t the
\nappellant  and the clause has no bearing on the question  of
\nthe  passing  of  title.  In  Shepherd\tv.  Harrison(1)\t the
\nplaintiff  in  England\tsent  an  order\t to  P\tand  Co.  at
\nPernambuco  to\tbuy  cotton for the plaintiff.\t P  and\t Co.
\nbought\tcotton on account of the plaintiff and made  out  an
\ninvoice “on account and risk of M\/s.  John Shepherd & Co.”
\n(1)  1871 L.R. (V) H.L. 11 6.\n<\/p>\n
850<\/span><\/p>\n
but  the  bills of lading were taken deliverable  to  P\t and
\nCo.’s order or assigns paying freight.\tThe invoice was sent
\ndirectly  to  the  plaintiff but the bills  of\tlading\twere
\nendorsed  in  blank by P and Co. and sent with the  bill  of
\nexchange to their own agents in England.  The English agents
\nforwarded the bills of lading with the bills of exchange  to
\nthe plaintiff requesting him to accept the bill of exchange.
\nThe  plaintiff retained the bill of lading but returned\t the
\nbill of exchange unaccepted on the ground that P and Co. had
\nnot complied with the plaintiff’s order.  The plaintiff then
\npresented  the\tdocuments to the defendants who\t refused  to
\ndeliver\t the  cotton in view of the  instructions  from\t the
\nagents of the consignor.  On these facts, it was held by the
\nHouse  of Lords that the property in the goods did not\tpass
\nto  the\t plaintiffs although they had retained the  bill  of
\nlading\tbecause no property was intended to pass  until\t the
\nplaintiff  had\taccepted  the bills  of\t exchange.   It\t was
\nstrongly  argued  for  the plaintiff  that  the\t goods\twere
\nshipped\t on account and at the risk of the  consignees,\t but
\nthe House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal  holding
\nthat the property in the goods did not pass to the purchaser
\neither\tin  Pernambuco or in Liverpool.\t  Dealing  with\t the
\nargument that the transfer of risk was an indication of\t the
\ntransfer of property, Lord Cairns held as follows
\n\t      “In  the invoice, the goods are  described  as
\n\t      being  shipped on account and at the  risk  of
\n\t      the plaintiff.  But along with the invoice,  a
\n\t      bill  of\tlading was taken from  the  Captain,
\n\t      making  the  cotton deliverable,\tnot  to\t the
\n\t      plaintiff, but to the shipper on board.  It is
\n\t      perfectly well settled that, in that state  of
\n\t      things,  the entry upon the  invoice,  stating
\n\t      that  the goods are to be shipped\t on  account
\n\t      and  at  the  risk of the\t consignee,  is\t not
\n\t      conclusive   but\tmay  be\t overruled  by\t the
\n\t      circumstance  of\tthe  jus  disponendi   being
\n\t      reserved by the shipper through the medium  of
\n\t      the bill of lading.”\n<\/p>\n
Applying  this principle to the present case, we are of\t the
\nopinion\t that  the High Court rightly held, upon  the  facts
\nfound, that the property in the rubber consignment passed to
\nthe appellant in the State of Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
We pass on to consider the second question of law arising in
\nthis  case-whether  the\t purchase tax  under  S.  10(a)\t was
\nleviable  in  respect of the purchases in  dispute.   It  is
\nnecessary at this stage to reproduce the relevant provisions
\nof  the\t Bombay\t Sales\tTax Act, 1953 as  it  stood  at\t the
\nmaterial  time.\t Section 2(6) of the Act defines a  “dealer”
\nas meaning any person who carries on the
\n851<\/span>
\nbusiness   of\tselling\t or  buying  goods   in\t  the\tpre-
\nReorgansiation\tState  of Bombay excluding  the\t transferred
\nterritories,   whether\tfor  commission,   remuneration\t  or
\notherwise  and includes a State Government which carries  on
\nsuch  business\tand any society, club or  association  which
\nsells  goods  to or buys goods from  its  members.   Section
\n2(11)  defines\ta  “registered\tdealer”\t to  mean  a  dealer
\nregistered  under s. 11 or deemed to be a registered  dealer
\nunder s. 12-B.\tAccording to s. 2(13) “sale” means a sale of
\ngoods.\tmade within the pre-Reorganisation State of  Bombay,
\nexcluding  the tranferred territorie’s for cash or  deferred
\npayment\t or  other valuable consideration and  includes\t any
\nsupply by a society or club or an association to its members
\non  payment of price or fees or subscription, but  does\t not
\ninclude\t  a  mortgage,\thypothecation,\tcharge\tor   pledge.
\nSection 6 of the Act is to the following effect
\n\t      “(1)  Subject to any rules made under S.\t18-B
\n\t      there  shall  be paid by every dealer  who  is
\n\t      liable to pay tax under this Act-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ia) sales tax or purchase tax on his sales or
\n\t      purchases in accordance with the provisions of
\n\t      section 7-A\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   a  sales  tax  on his  sales  levied  in
\n\t      accordance with the provisions of section 8,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   a general sales tax on his sales  levied
\n\t      in  accordance with the provisions of  section
\n\t      9, and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   a  purchase tax on his purchases  levied
\n\t      in  accordance with the provisions of  section
\n\t      10,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   a\ttax  on\t his  purchases\t levied\t  in
\n\t      accordance with the provisions of section\t 10-
\n\t      AA.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   The\t tax payable by a dealer  under\t any
\n\t      clause of
\n\t      sub-section  (1) shall be paid in addition  to
\n\t      the  tax\tor taxes, if any,  payable  by\tsuch
\n\t      dealer  under any other clause or\t clauses  of
\n\t      the said sub-section.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 10(a) states as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “10.  Subject to the provisions of section  7,
\n\t      there  shall be levied a purchase tax  on\t the
\n\t      turnover\tof purchases of goods  specified  in
\n\t      column  1 of Schedule B at the rates, if\tany,
\n\t      specified\t against such goods in column  4  of
\n\t      the said schedule,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   where  such goods are purchased  from  a
\n\t      person who is not a registered dealer;”\n<\/p>\n
\t      852<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Section 10-C reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In the case of such goods as may be specified
\n\t      by the State Government by notification in the
\n\t      Official Gazette from time to time, which have
\n\t      been  despatched or brought from any place  in
\n\t      India  outside  the State of  Bombay  and\t are
\n\t      actually\tdelivered  as a direct result  of  a
\n\t      purchase to a buyer in the State of Bombay for
\n\t      consumption  therein, there shall be  paid  by
\n\t      such  buyer on such purchase an outside  goods
\n\t      purchase tax levied at such rate not exceeding
\n\t      twenty-one  pies\tin  the\t rupee\tas  may\t  be
\n\t      specified\t in  such notification,\t unless\t the
\n\t      buyer  produces  a  declaration  made  by\t the
\n\t      seller  of such goods in the  prescribed\tform
\n\t      certifying  that\tthe seller is  a  registered
\n\t      dealer  and shall pay the tax on such sale  in
\n\t      due course :\n<\/p>\n
\t       Provided that no such tax shall be levied  on
\n\t      the  purchase  of any goods  by  a  registered
\n\t      dealer  if  after the purchase the  goods\t are
\n\t      sold  by him or used by him in the  prescribed
\n\t      manner in the manufacture or processing of any
\n\t      goods for sale.”\n<\/p>\n
It is argued by Mr. Donde that the term “person” in s. 10(a)
\nshould\tbe read as meaning a dealer who carries on  business
\nin Bombay but who is not registered under the Act.  In other
\nwords,\tit  is contended that the person referred to  in  s.
\n10(a) must be a dealer within the definition of s. 2 (6)  of
\nthe  Act but who is not registered either because he  failed
\nto  get himself registered or because his turnover  is\tless
\nthan  the  specified  limit.  We are unable  to\t accept\t the
\nargument  put  forward by Mr. Donde as correct.\t We  see  no
\nreason\tfor placing any limitation or qualification  on\t the
\nterm  “person” which occurs in s. 10 (a).  There is  nothing
\nin the context or language of the section for importing\t any
\nqualification on the plain meaning of that expression.\tThat
\nsection plainly states that purchases made by a dealer\tfrom
\na  person who is not a registered dealer will be subject  to
\npurchase tax.  The appellant is a dealer and it has made the
\npurchases   in\tquestion  from\tthe  sellers  who  are\t not
\nregistered  dealers.  The provisions of s. 10(a) of the\t Act
\nare  satisfied\tin  the present case and  the  purchases  in
\nquestion accordingly are liable to tax.
\nThe  next contention of Mr. Donde is that the provisions  of
\nS. 10(a) cannot apply to transactions of purchase where\t the
\npurchased goods have been brought from outside the State  of
\nBombay for consumption in that State because s. 10-C of\t the
\nAct would apply to such transactions.  We do not think there
\nis any warrant
\n\t\t\t    853<\/span>
\nin  this  argument.  S. 10-C reproduces the  Explanation  to
\nArt. 286(1)(a) of the Constitution and it would apply  where
\nunder general law the sale takes place outside the State but
\nthe goods are delivered as a direct result of the sales\t for
\nconsumption within the State of Bombay.\t The buyer  referred
\nto  in\ts. 10-C need not necessarily be a dealer  under\t the
\nAct,  because so far as the dealers are concerned  they\t are
\nonly  liable  to  three types of  taxes,  viz.,\t sales\ttax,
\ngeneral\t tax and purchase tax, enumerated in s. 6  which  is
\nthe charging section.  On the other hand. s. 10-C applies to
\na  “buyer” who brings into the State of Bombay\tgoods  which
\nare  notified  in the Official Gazette.\t It should  also  be
\nnoticed that s. 10-C deals only with certain specific  goods
\nto  be\tnotified by the State Government, whereas  s.  10(a)
\nincludes   all\tpurchases  made\t from  persons\tother\tthan
\nregistered dealers.  It is manifest that the scope and ambit
\nof these two sections are different.  We are of opinion that
\nMr.  Donde  is unable to make good his\tsubmission  on\tthis
\naspect\tof the case and the High Court has rightly  answered
\nthis question of law also in favour of the State and against
\nthe assessee.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons expressed, we hold that this  appeal  fails
\nand must be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
854<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1153, 1966 SCR (2) 845 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P. PETITIONER: M\/S. CARONA SAHU CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-193786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-08T14:15:54+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T14:15:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965\"},\"wordCount\":3043,\"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\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T14:15:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-08T14:15:54+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965","datePublished":"1965-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T14:15:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965"},"wordCount":3043,"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\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965","name":"M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T14:15:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carona-sahu-co-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-december-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1965"}]},{"@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\/193786","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=193786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}