{"id":59098,"date":"1991-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991"},"modified":"2017-06-18T01:57:36","modified_gmt":"2017-06-17T20:27:36","slug":"associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991","title":{"rendered":"Associated Cement Companies &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, &#8230; on 9 April, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Associated Cement Companies &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, &#8230; on 9 April, 1991<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1122, \t\t  1991 SCR  (2) 250<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Misra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Misra, Rangnath (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED, KYMORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, INDORE, ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/04\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)\nBENCH:\nMISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)\nKANIA, M.H.\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1122\t\t  1991 SCR  (2) 250\n 1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 251 JT 1991 (2)\t144\n 1991 SCALE  (1)661\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution   of\t India,\t 1950:\t Article   286(1)(a)\nExplanation-Sale of cement under a contract by\tmanufacturer\nto marketing company within Madhya Pradesh--Non existence of\nCentral Sales Tax Act--explanation not applicable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant, a manufacturer of cement, entered\tinto\nan agreement with the  Cement Manufacturing Company of India\nLimited,  for  sale  of cement.\t Under\tthe  agreement,\t the\nappellant was to sell its cement only through the  marketing\ncompany,  and  certain\tsums would be paid  for\t the  cement\nsupplied by the marketing company, which had the  discretion\nto fix the sale price.\n     For  the 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 periods when\t the\nappellant  was\tassessed  to sales tax\tfor  the  supply  of\ncement,\t it  maintained\t at the assessment  stage  that\t the\ntransactions  were  not exigible to sales tax as  they\twere\ncovered under the  Explanation to Article 286(1)(a).\n     The first Appellate Authority and the Board of  Revenue\ndid not accept the stand of the appellant.\n     The   Board  of  Revenue  held  that  cement  being   a\ncontrolled commodity, distribution of cement continued to be\ncontrolled during the period, notwithstanding the expiry  of\nthe Defence of India Rules. Relying on the decision of\tthis\nCourt  in the case of Rohtas Industries Limited v. State  of\nBihar, 12 STC 621 the Board of Revenue held that the  Cement\nMarketing  Company was an independent organisation  and\t was\ncarrying on business as an independent entity and that\twhat\nhad  actually  been  taxed were the sales  effected  by\t the\nappellant to the Cement marketing Company and not the  sales\nmade  to the parties which obtained authorization  from\t the\nCement Controller.\n     After  analyzing the terms of the contract between\t the\nmanufacturer  and the Marketing Company, this Court held  in\nRohtas\tIndustries  case  that there was  sale\tbetween\t the\nmanufacturer and the Marketing Company.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 251\n     Following\tits view taken in Rohtas Industries case  as\nthe  present  case  had\t the  same  terms,  which  had\tbeen\nconsidered  in the earlier case, and examining the  question\nwhether\t the sale that took place between  the\tmanufacturer\nand  the Marketing Company could be taken to be\t covered  by\nthe Explanation to Article 286(1)(a), this Court, dismissing\nthe appeals,\n     HELD:  1. There was preceding local sales\tcomplete  in\nevery  respect within Madhya Pradesh by which title  to\t the\ncement\thad  passed  from the  appellant  to  the  Marketing\nCompany.  The concept of inter-State sale as brought  in  by\nthe  Sixth Amendment or in the subsequent statute  known  as\nthe  Central  Sales  Tax Act was not in\t existence  for\t the\nrelevant   period  now\tunder  consideration.  The   finding\nrecorded  by  the authorities was that the delivery  of\t the\ncement was not the direct result of such sale or purchase of\nthe cement outside the State. In the absence of such privity\nthe Explanation is not attracted to the\t transactions.[254E-\nG].\n     2.\t  In view of the finding recorded by the authorities\nthat the cement in this case actually had not been delivered\nas a direct result of such sale or purchase for the  purpose\nof  consumption outside the State, the only conclusion\tthat\ncan  follow is that the Explanation does not apply  and\t the\nassessments are justified.[254H-255A].\n     Rohtas  Industries\t Limited v. State of Bihar,  12\t STC\n621, followed.\n     Mohmd. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa, [1975] Suppl. SCR\n169, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL Appeal No.768\t(NT)<br \/>\nof 1977 etc. etc.<br \/>\n     From  the judgment Order dated 9.10.1975 of the  Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh High Court in M.C.C. No.144 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>     V.A.   Bobde,  B.R.Aggarwala  and\tU.A.Rana   for\t the<br \/>\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     S.V.Deshpande and S.K.Agnihotri for the Respondents.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     RANGANATH\tMISHRA,\t CJ. These are\tappeals\t by  special<br \/>\nleave<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       252<\/span><br \/>\nand  are  directed  against the separate  decisions  of\t the<br \/>\nMadhya\tPradesh\t High Court in references under\t the  Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh Sales Tax Act. Civil Appeal No.768\/77 relates to the<br \/>\nassessment  period 1951-52, Civil Appeal 539\/78\t relates  to<br \/>\n1950-51 and Civil Appeal 1038\/78 to 1952-53.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  appellant  is\t a manufacturer\t of  cement  in\t the<br \/>\nfactory located at Kymore in Madhya Pradesh. Several  cement<br \/>\nmanufacturing  companies as also the appellant\thad  entered<br \/>\ninto  arrangement with the Cement Manufacturing\t Company  of<br \/>\nIndia Limited whereunder the Marketing Company was appointed<br \/>\nas  the\t sole and exclusive sales manager for  the  sale  of<br \/>\ncement\tmanufactured by the manufacturing companies and\t the<br \/>\nmanufacturing  companies had agreed not to sell directly  or<br \/>\nindirectly any of their cement to any person save and except<br \/>\nthrough\t the Marketing Company. The manufacturing  companies<br \/>\nwere  entitled\tto be paid a certain sum for  every  ton  of<br \/>\ncement\tsupplied by them or at such other rate as  might  be<br \/>\ndecided\t upon by the Directors of the Marketing Company. The<br \/>\nMarketing  Company had the authority to sell cement at\tsuch<br \/>\nprice or prices and upon such terms as it might in its\tsole<br \/>\ndiscretion consider appropriate.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For  the three periods referred to above the  appellant<br \/>\nhad  supplied  cement manufactured by it  to  the  Marketing<br \/>\nCompany\t and  maintained  at the assessment  stage  for\t the<br \/>\nrespective   periods   that  these  were  covered   by\t the<br \/>\nExplanation  to\t Article  286(1)(1) as it  then\t stood\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,  the transactions were not exigible to sales\t tax<br \/>\nin Madhya Pradesh. This stand was negatived by the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer,  the  First Appellate Authority and  the  Board  of<br \/>\nRevenue. The Board in the statement of the case drawn up  by<br \/>\nit  held that cement became a controlled commodity from\t 8th<br \/>\nof  August,  1942,  and notwithstanding the  expiry  of\t the<br \/>\nDefence\t of India Rules with effect from 30th of  September,<br \/>\n1946, distribution of cement continued to be controlled even<br \/>\nduring\t the   period.\tThe  Marketing\t Company   had\t its<br \/>\nestablishment  at  Nagpur then within Madhya  Pradesh  which<br \/>\nreceived the orders of authorisations and managed the supply<br \/>\nfrom  the  factory  at Kymore. The Board  in  its  statement<br \/>\nfurther stated:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;The\tentire question in dispute hinges round\t the<br \/>\n\t  fact\tas  to\twhether the sales  in  question\t are<br \/>\n\t  inter-State  in  nature or should be\tregarded  as<br \/>\n\t  intra-State. It is seen that the Cement  Marketing<br \/>\n\t  Company  is  an independent  organisation  and  is<br \/>\n\t  carrying on business as an independent entity.  It<br \/>\n\t  is also seen that what has actually been taxed are<br \/>\n\t  the  sales effected by the appellant to the Cement<br \/>\n\t  Marketing Company<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 253<\/span><br \/>\n\t  of  India  and not the sales made to\tthe  parties<br \/>\n\t  which\t obtained an authorisation from\t the  Cement<br \/>\n\t  Controller.  This  seems  to be the  crux  of\t the<br \/>\n\t  matter.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>On  this basis reliance was placed on the decision  of\tthis<br \/>\n Court\tin the case of Rohtas Industries Limited v. State  of<br \/>\nBihar,\t12 STC 621 where, after analysing the terms  of\t the<br \/>\ncontract  between  the manufacturer  (appellant\t before\t the<br \/>\nSupreme Court) and the Marketing Company, this Court held:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;On  a review of these terms of the agreement,  it<br \/>\n\t  is  manifest that the manufacturing companies\t had<br \/>\n\t  no control over the terms of the contract of sales<br \/>\n\t  by  the  Marketing Company and that the  price  at<br \/>\n\t  which\t cement\t was sold by the  Marketing  Company<br \/>\n\t  could\t not  be  controlled  by  the  manufacturing<br \/>\n\t  companies;  that the manufacturing companies\twere<br \/>\n\t  entitled,  for ordinary cement, to be paid at\t the<br \/>\n\t  rate\tof Rs.24 per ton at works, or at such  other<br \/>\n\t  rate as might be decided upon by the Directors  of<br \/>\n\t  the  Marketing Company, and in respect of  special<br \/>\n\t  cement, at such additional rates as the  Directors<br \/>\n\t  of  the  Marketing Company might  determine;\tthat<br \/>\n\t  sale\tby the Marketing Company was not for and  on<br \/>\n\t  behalf  of  the manufacturing\t companies  but\t for<br \/>\n\t  itself  and  the manufacturing  companies  had  no<br \/>\n\t  control  over the sales nor had they\tany  concern<br \/>\n\t  with the persons to whom cement was sold. In fine,<br \/>\n\t  the  goods  were  supplied to the  orders  of\t the<br \/>\n\t  Marketing Company, which had the right, under\t the<br \/>\n\t  terms\t of the agreement, to sell on such terms  as<br \/>\n\t  it   thought\tfit  and  that\t the   manufacturing<br \/>\n\t  companies had the right to receive only the  price<br \/>\n\t  fixed\t by the Marketing Company. The\trelationship<br \/>\n\t  in  such cases can be regarded only as that  of  a<br \/>\n\t  seller and buyer and not of principal and agent.&#8221;<br \/>\n     This  Court  in Rohtas Industries case  on\t a  detailed<br \/>\n\t  analysis of the terms of the contract came to hold<br \/>\n\t  that there was a sale between the manufacturer and<br \/>\n\t  the  Marketing Company. It is not in dispute\tthat<br \/>\n\t  the  agreement  between  the\tappellant  and\t the<br \/>\n\t  Marketing Company in this case has the same  terms<br \/>\n\t  as  this  Court considered  in  Rohtas  Industries<br \/>\n\t  case. It follows, therefore, that it must be\theld<br \/>\n\t  that\tthere was a sale between the  appellant\t and<br \/>\n\t  the Marketing Company.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The  Marketing Company had its establishment at  Nagpur<br \/>\nwithin\tthe State of Madhya Pradesh at that time. There\t was,<br \/>\ntherefore, a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       254<\/span><br \/>\npreceding  local  sale\tprior  to  the\tsales  between\t the<br \/>\nMarketing  Company  and\t the  allottee\tof  cement  by\t the<br \/>\nregulating  authority.\tThis  Court  in\t Rohtas\t  Industries<br \/>\nfurther found that the transaction between the\tmanufacturer<br \/>\nand  the  Marketing  Company  had nothing  to  do  with\t the<br \/>\nMarketing  Company&#8217;s  sales to third parties. There  was  no<br \/>\nprivity\t between the manufacturer and the ultimate  consumer<br \/>\nwho  was  said\tto have been located outside  the  State  of<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question for consideration is whether the sale that<br \/>\nlook  place  between  the  manufacturer\t and  the  Marketing<br \/>\nCompany\t can be taken to be covered by the Explanation.\t The<br \/>\nExplanation which was repealed by the Sixth Amendment of the<br \/>\nConstitution in 1956 read thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;For\tthe  purposes of sub-clause (a), a  sale  or<br \/>\n\t  purchase  shall be deemed to have taken  place  in<br \/>\n\t  the  State in which the goods have  actually\tbeen<br \/>\n\t  delivered  as\t a  direct result of  such  sale  or<br \/>\n\t  purchase  for the purpose of consumption  in\tthat<br \/>\n\t  State\t notwithstanding  the fact  that  under\t the<br \/>\n\t  general law relating to sale of goods the property<br \/>\n\t  in  the  goods  has  by reason  of  such  sale  or<br \/>\n\t  purchase passed in another State.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Rohtas Industries case was dealing with a period  prior<br \/>\nto the Constitution; therefore, without the Explanation. The<br \/>\nquestion for consideration thus is: does the presence of the<br \/>\nExplanation make any difference?\n<\/p>\n<p>     What  has been found as a fact in the statement of\t the<br \/>\ncase  is  that there was preceding local sales\tcomplete  in<br \/>\nevery  respect within Madhya Pradesh by which title  to\t the<br \/>\ncement\thad  passed  from the  appellant  to  the  Marketing<br \/>\nCompany.  The concept of inter-State sale as brought  in  by<br \/>\nthe  Sixth Amendment or in the subsequent statute  known  as<br \/>\nthe  Central  Sales  Tax Act was not in\t existence  for\t the<br \/>\nrelevant   period  now\tunder  consideration.  The   finding<br \/>\nrecorded  by  the authorities is that the  delivery  of\t the<br \/>\ncement was not the direct result of such sale or purchase of<br \/>\nthe cement outside the State. In the absence of such privity<br \/>\nthe Explanation is not attracted to the transactions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     An attempt was made by counsel to rely upon some of the<br \/>\nlater  decisions of this Court where with reference  to\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  contained in the Central Sales Tax Act  the\t law<br \/>\nhad  been laid down. It is unnecessary to refer to  them  in<br \/>\nview  of  the finding recorded by the authorities  that\t the<br \/>\ncement\tin  this case actually had not been delivered<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 255<\/span><br \/>\nas a direct result of such sale or purchase for the  purpose<br \/>\nof  consumption\t outside  the  State.  That  is\t a   finding<br \/>\nclinching  enough and once that is taken as binding on\tthis<br \/>\nCourt,\tthe  only  conclusion that can follow  is  that\t the<br \/>\nExplanation   does  not\t apply\tand  the   assessments\t are<br \/>\njustified. The ratio of <a href=\"\/doc\/222964\/\">Mohd. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa,<\/a><br \/>\n[1975] Suppl.SCR 169 is also against the appellant&#8217;s stand.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We\t accordingly  dismiss  the appeals  and\t uphold\t the<br \/>\ndecisions  of  the High Court. There would be no  order\t for<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.R.\t\t\t\t      Appeals dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 256<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Associated Cement Companies &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, &#8230; on 9 April, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1122, 1991 SCR (2) 250 Author: R Misra Bench: Misra, Rangnath (Cj) PETITIONER: ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED, KYMORE Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, INDORE, ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/04\/1991 BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: [&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-59098","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>Associated Cement Companies ... vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 9 April, 1991 - 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\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Associated Cement Companies ... vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 9 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-17T20:27:36+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Associated Cement Companies &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, &#8230; on 9 April, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-17T20:27:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991\"},\"wordCount\":1407,\"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\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991\",\"name\":\"Associated Cement Companies ... vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 9 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-17T20:27:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Associated Cement Companies &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, &#8230; on 9 April, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"Associated Cement Companies ... vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 9 April, 1991 - 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\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Associated Cement Companies ... vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 9 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-17T20:27:36+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Associated Cement Companies &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, &#8230; on 9 April, 1991","datePublished":"1991-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-17T20:27:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991"},"wordCount":1407,"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\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991","name":"Associated Cement Companies ... vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 9 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-17T20:27:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-companies-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-on-9-april-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Associated Cement Companies &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, &#8230; on 9 April, 1991"}]},{"@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\/59098","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=59098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59098\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}