{"id":85950,"date":"1958-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1958-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958"},"modified":"2015-02-15T15:58:07","modified_gmt":"2015-02-15T10:28:07","slug":"mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958","title":{"rendered":"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & … on 15 April, 1958"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & … on 15 April, 1958<\/div>\n
Bench: S.R. Das (Cji), N.H. Bhagwati, S.K. Das, J.L. Kapur, V. Bose<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  344 of 1957\n\nPETITIONER:\nMAHADAYAL PREMCHANDRA \n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA & ANR.  \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/04\/1958\n\nBENCH:\nS.R. DAS (CJI) & N.H. BHAGWATI & S.K. DAS & J.L. KAPUR & V. BOSE\n\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1959 SCR  551 = AIR 1958 SC 667<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 344 of 1957 (Appeal by special leave from the order dated
\nJanuary 15, 1955, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta, in case No. 283
\nof 1952-53 (R.C. No. CSI\/1630-A)), decided on April 15, 1958.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment was delivered by BHAGWATI J. :\n<\/p>\n
BHAGWATI J. for the This appeal with Special Leave is directed against the
\norder dated January 15, 1955, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Canning
\nStreet (District I) Charge, Calcutta, assessing the appellants to sales-tax
\nin respect of transactions valued at Rs. 6, 21, 369-10-3 and assessing
\nsales-tax thereon at 9 pies in the rupee at Rs. 27, 816, under the
\nprovisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act (Ben. VI of 1941)
\nhereinafter referred to as “the Act”.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants carry on the business of (1) selling goods or of dealers,
\npartly in wholesale and partly retail, of woollen and cotton fabrics and
\nother products, (2) as well as of commission agents of woolen and cotton
\nfabrics and in their latter capacity are and have been the agents or
\nrepresentatives of the British India Corporation Ltd., Proprietor, The
\nKanpur Woollen Mills, both at Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh, for the territory
\ncomprising West Bengal and Assam and parts of Bihar and Orissa under the
\nterms of an agreement between themselves and their principals dated June 2,
\n1952, supplemented by a letter dated July 7, 1952, addressed to them by the
\nprincipals.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants are duly registered as “dealers” in West Bengal under the
\nprovisions of the Act with respect to their aforesaid business of wholesale
\nand retail distribution or sale of goods and their certificate of
\nRegistration is numbered O.S. 1\/1630A. On or about December 15, 1952, the
\nappellants submitted to the 1st respondent their return for sales-tax in
\nthe prescribed form for the return period ending Dewali 2009 Sambat
\ncorresponding to October 17, 1952 (i.e., for the year 1951-52).\n<\/p>\n
The gross turnover in the said return was calculated at Rs. 1, 25, 24,
\n883-14-3 and after allowing therefrom the permissible exemptions and
\ndeductions the taxable turnover amounted to Rs. 2, 42, 480-10-3 on which
\nsales-tax 9 pies in the rupee under the provisions of section 5(1) of the
\nAct amounting to Rs. 11, 366-5 was duly paid by the appellants.It appears
\nthat in the course of examination of books of account and Purchase Vouchers
\nof M\/s. Khubiram Dhansiram of Calcutta, an unregistered dealer, it came to
\nthe notice of the Assistant Commissioner, (C.S.) that the said dealer had
\npurchased woollen goods worth Rs. 59, 530-13 during the period from
\nNovember 20, 1952, to December 18, 1952, from M\/s. British India
\nCorporation Ltd., Kanpur Woollen Mills Branch. Invoices, copies of which
\nwere enclosed therewith, had been drawn by the British India Corporation
\nLtd., for Kanpur Woollen Mills from Kanpur and the goods in question were
\nreported to have been dispatched to M\/s. Khubiram Dhansiram from Kanpur.
\nOrders Nos. quoted in the invoices were the Nos. of orders placed to Kanpur
\nWoolen Mills by their sole agents in West Bengal, the appellants herein,
\nand the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) was of the opinion that under
\nExplanation 2 of section 2(g) of the Act, the sales of Kanpur Woollen Mills
\nfrom Kanpur as referred to above should be deemed to have taken place in
\nWest Bengal and under Explanation 3 of section 2(c) of the Act the
\nappellants should be deemed to be the dealer in West Bengal on account of
\nthe sales of Kanpur Woollen Mills and as such were liable to pay the tax at
\nthat end. The Assistant Commissioner (C.S.), therefore, asked the first
\nrespondent by his letter dated January 21, 1953, to verify as to whether
\nthe appellants had accounted for those transactions in their books of
\naccount and had paid the taxes due by them.\n<\/p>\n
On February 3, 1953, the first respondent issued a notice under sections 11
\nand 14(1) of the Act stating that he was not satisfied that the return
\nfilled by the appellants for the year ending October 17, 1952, was correct
\nand complete and asked the appellants to produce before him their books of
\na account.The representatives of the appellants had an interview with the
\nfirst respondent on the said date and on February 16, 1953, the appellants
\nsubmitted to the first respondent a statement in connection with their
\nagency transactions with the Kanpur Woollen Mills, Kanpur which showed that
\nthere were three types of transactions entered into by them as selling
\nagents of the Mills, viz.,<\/p>\n
(1) The appellants booked orders on behalf of and subject to acceptance by
\nthe Mills and were entitled to get commission on the value of the invoices
\nmade out in the name of the party who placed the order, such invoices with
\nother customary documents being sent direct to the parties by the Mills
\nthrough their Bankers.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Orders were placed direct by the parties resident in the territories in
\nwhich the appellants were selling agents and the goods were supplied
\ndirectly by the Mills to those parties. There also the appellants were
\nentitled to their commission.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The goods were ordered and invoiced in the name of the appellants and
\ndealt with by them as dealers either in wholesale or retail. The appellants
\nwould be entitled to commission on the invoice value of goods. In regard to
\nthe two former categories, the appellants did not come in the picture
\nexcept for their commission and consequently no entry was made in their
\nbooks of account for the value of those goods. As to the last category the
\nvalue of the invoice was accounted for in their books of account to the
\ndebit of goods account and the sale proceeds were credited as and when the
\ngoods were sold by the appellants. The appellants contended that it was
\nonly in respect of the goods of the last category that they were “dealer”
\nwithin the meaning of that term as defined in the Act and they were
\ntherefore liable to pay sales tax only in regard to the same.This letter
\nwas endorsed by the first respondent on March 6, 1953, as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Copy forwarded to A.C. (Central Section) for information with reference to
\nhis memo. No. 385\/3R-40\/52 dated 21st January 1953 and soliciting further
\ninstructions in the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
After completing the examination of the books of account produced by the
\nappellants, the first respondent made an entry in the Order-Sheet dated May
\n26, 1953, asking that the following further details may be sent to the
\nAssist. Commissioner (C.S.) to elicit his opinion in the matter :\n<\/p>\n
“The dealer appeared with books of account on January 21, 1953. On
\nexamination it was found that the dealer made entries only of commission
\nreceived from Messrs. Kanpur Woollen Mills, Kanpur for goods supplied to
\nhis customers in West Bengal from Kanpur. In this connection I may point
\nout that the dealer is a commission agent of the Kanpur Woollen Mills for
\nthe State of West Bengal earning a commission on all sales of goods
\neffected by the Mills within the territorial limits assigned to the dealer.
\nIn most cases the dealer secures orders from parties and forwards the same
\nto the Kanpur Mills who supply the goods to the respective parties direct,
\na percentage of commission on the value of the goods so supplied being
\ncredited to the dealer.\n<\/p>\n
The goods being delivered in West Bengal for consumption, no doubt satisfy
\nthe requirements of the Explanation to clause (1) of Article 286 of the
\nConstitution of India. It is, therefore, conceded that the sale took place
\nin West Bengal. But the fact remains that the seller in such circumstances
\nwould obviously be the Kanpur Mills and not the dealer. The privity of
\ncontract is resting with the Kanpur Mills on the one hand and the purchaser
\non the other. The position of the Kanpur Mills is that of a named and
\ndisclosed principal. In view of the above observations, I feel that the
\ndealer incurs no liability under the B.P. (S.T.) Act of 1941 in respect of
\nthe goods supplied to his customers in West Bengal direct from Kanpur by
\nMessrs. Kanpur Woollen Mills.”\n<\/p>\n
This memorandum was submitted by the first respondent to the Assistant
\nCommissioner (C.S.) for his opinion.\n<\/p>\n
On August 29, 1953, the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) made a note that the
\nfirst respondent should not have made a direct reference to him. He
\nrecorded his opinion that the appellants were accountable for all sales in
\nrespect of which the goods were delivered in West Bengal and that they were
\ncommission agents who received commission on all sales made in West Bengal
\nby the Kanpur Woollen Mills, Kanpur and being the commission agents of the
\nKanpur Mills were accountable for the transactions. He, therefore, ordered
\nthe first respondent to do the needful. The first respondent made an entry
\nin the order sheet on September 2, 1953, stating that action was being
\ntaken accordingly. He also ordered the appellants to appear with books of
\naccount for further examination, and to produce their Agency Contract with
\nKanpur Mills and a list of the dealers in Calcutta who received goods
\ndirect from Kanpur.\n<\/p>\n
On November 21, 1952, the representative of the appellants submitted a
\nstatement to the first respondent clarifying the whole position. It was
\npointed out that the appellants acted as agents of M\/s. Lalimli Mills of
\nKanpur and got a commission once at the end of every year on all the sales
\neffected by the Mills in the State of West Bengal. The orders were placed
\ndirectly by the customers of the Mills with the Mills; the Mills executed
\nthe orders and consigned the goods direct to those customers; recording the
\nsaid customers as the consignees; the said customers negotiated bills
\nthrough the banks, cleared the goods from the carriers and sold them as
\nthey liked. The Mills only maintained a personal account of the appellants
\nin which the commission at the end of a year was credited. The Mills never
\ndebited the appellants with the value of the goods; neither did the
\nappellants credit the Mills with the value of the goods nor debited their
\ngoods account. At no stage of these transactions was the property in the
\ngoods either transferred to or acquired by the appellants, and nobody could
\ntransfer any goods which he did not acquire or possess. Besides, the
\naccounts of the said customers of the Mills did not indicate any
\ntransactions at all with the appellants in the State of West Bengal. It was
\ntherefore submitted that the appellants could not be deemed or held in law
\nor in fact to be the dealer qua those sales in West Bengal much less liable
\nto pay any sales tax on those sales. It was also pointed out that the
\nappellants had earned the maximum commission of 2.4% which was less than
\neven the sales tax which worked out to about 4.2% and this could never have
\nbeen intended by the law.On June 19, 1954, the representative of the
\nappellants submitted a further statement to the first respondent. He
\npointed out that at no stage whatever did the appellants have physical
\npossession or control over the goods in question and also drew the
\nattention of the first respondent to several sales tax cases in support of
\nthe position taken up by the appellants. He also repeated that all through
\nthe appellants had been working as mere commission agents at 2.4% for the
\ntransactions effected by them between their principals on the one hand and
\ndifferent customers on the other. Now, the department wanted to levy tax at
\n4.2% on the total transactions, which meant an addition of 1.8% from their
\nown pocket to the total commission earned which he felt could never be the
\nintention of the law.\n<\/p>\n
On August 12, 1954, the first respondent recorded a note wherein he stated
\nthat on the materials placed before him he was doubtful whether the
\nappellants could be considered as the sole agent of M\/s. Kanpur Woollen
\nMills as per provision of Explanation 3 of section 2(c) of the Act. He
\nrequested the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) to reconsider the matter in the
\ncontext of the facts mentioned and give his “valued opinion”.\n<\/p>\n
On September 23, 1954, the then Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) wrote that
\nhis predecessor had already advised the first respondent on this matter and
\nif the appellants were aggrieved they might prefer a regular revision or
\nappeal petition before the competent authority as provided under the law.
\nThe first respondent made an entry on September 30, 1954, stating that he
\nhad seen the notes and that action was being taken accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
The first respondent ultimately on January 15, 1955, made the assessment
\norder assessing these disputed transactions to sales tax on the following
\nground :-\n<\/p>\n
“On inspection of the books of account, I found that the dealer was a
\ncommission agent of the Cawnpore Woollen Mills for the State of West Bengal
\nearning commission on all sales made in West Bengal by the Cawnpore Woollen
\nMills, Cawnpore. Though the principal is at Cawnpore, the dealer, being the
\ncommission agent of the Cawnpore Woollen Mills, is definitely accountable
\nfor the transactions or sales within the State of West Bengal. The dealer
\ndenied this liability on various grounds, vide his letters dated 21st
\nNovember, 1953 and 19th June, 1954, which appear to be not at all
\nsatisfactory. I hold the dealer liable for all such sales, made by M\/s.
\nCawnpore, in Woollen Mills, Cawnpore, in West Bengal. The statement of such
\nsales filed by the dealer shows that sales of such nature, effected in West
\nBengal amounts to Rs. 6, 21, 369-10-3 which were found to have not been
\nentered in books of account. As such, I now include this amount in G.T. and
\nadd the same to Balance A. So G.T. is finally assessed at Rs. 13, 146,
\n255-8-4.”\n<\/p>\n
The appellants obtained Special Leave from this Court under Art. 136 of the
\nConstitution to appeal against this order of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
From the detailed narration of the facts regarding this particular
\nassessment it is quite clear that the first respondent did not exercise his
\nown judgment in the matter of the assessment in question. Even though he
\nwas convinced to the contrary, he asked for the instructions of the
\nAssistant Commissioner (C.S.) and followed the same and assessed the
\nappellants to sales-tax in respect of the disputed transactions. The order
\nwhich he ultimately passed on January 15, 1955, further showed that he was
\nmerely voicing the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) without any
\nconviction of his own and the only thing he had to say in regard to the
\nvarious grounds mentioned in the letters dated November 21, 1953, and June
\n19, 1954, was that they appeared to him to be “not at all satisfactory”.
\nThis was hardly a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. If the
\nAssistant Commissioner (C.S.) had been dealing with the same he could have
\nby all means given in the assessment order which he made his reasons for
\ndoing so and these reasons would have been open to scrutiny in further
\nproceedings taken by the appellants either by way of appeal or otherwise.
\nThe Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) however, had delegated this work of
\nassessment to the first respondent and then it was the duty of the first
\nrespondent to make the assessment order giving his own reasons for doing
\nso. The file of the assessee, however, shows that even though the 1st
\nrespondent was satisfied on the materials placed by the appellants and
\ntheir representative before him that the appellants were not liable to pay
\nsales-tax in regard to these transactions, he referred the matter first for
\ninstructions and then for obtaining the “valued opinion” of his superior,
\nthe Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) and the latter expressed his opinion that
\nthe appellants were liable in respect of these transactions. All this was
\ndone behind the back of the appellants and the appellants had no
\nopportunity of meeting the point of view which had been adopted by the
\nAssistant Commissioner (C.S.) and the first respondent quietly followed
\nthese instructions and advice of the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.)We are
\nreally surprised at the manner in which the first respondent dealt with the
\nmatter of this assessment. It is clear that he did not exercise his own
\njudgment in the matter and faithfully followed the instructions conveyed to
\nhim by the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) without giving the appellants an
\nopportunity to meet the points urged against them. The whole procedure was
\ncontrary to the principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted was,
\nto say the least, unfair and was calculated to undermine the confidence of
\nthe public in the impartial and fair administration of the sales-tax
\nDepartment concerned. We would, have, simply on this ground, set aside the
\nassessment order made by the first respondent and remanded the matter back
\nto him for his due consideration in accordance with law; but as the matter
\nis old and a remand would lead to unnecessary harassment of the appellants,
\nwe have preferred to deal with the appeal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
The determination of this appeal turns on the construction of the
\ndefinition of the terms “dealer” and “Turnover” given in section 2 of the
\nAct, the relevant portions of which run as under :\n<\/p>\n
Section 2 :- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject
\nor context,<\/p>\n
(c) “Dealer” means any person who carries on the business of selling goods
\nin the State of West Bengal and includes the
\nGovernment………………………..\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 2 : A factor, a broker, a commission agent, a del credere
\nagent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name
\ncalled, and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned or
\nnot, who carries on the business of selling goods and who has, in the
\ncustomary course of business, authority to sell goods belonging to
\nprincipals is a dealer;\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 3 : The manager or an agent in West Bengal of a dealer who
\nresides outside West Bengal and carries on the business of selling goods in
\nWest Bengal shall, in respect of such business, be deemed to be a
\ndealer……………………..(i) “Turnover”: used in relation to any
\nperiod means the aggregate of the sale-prices or parts of sale-prices
\nreceivable or if a dealer so elect, actually received by the dealer during
\nsuch period after deducting the amounts, if any, refunded by the dealer in
\nrespect of any goods returned by the purchaser within such period.”\n<\/p>\n
It may be noted that under section 4 of the Act every dealer whose gross
\nturnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act
\nexceeded the taxable quantum was liable to pay tax under the Act on all
\nsales effected after the date so notified; and under section 5 the tax
\npayable by a dealer under the Act was levied at the rate therein specified
\non his taxable turnover. Unless, therefore, the sales were effected by the
\ndealer and the sale proceeds received by him such sales could not be
\nincluded in his taxable turnover and he would not be liable to pay sales-
\ntax thereon.\n<\/p>\n
The position as it obtains in the present case is that even according to
\nthe first respondent’s own showing in the assessment order the sales in
\nquestion were made by the Kanpur Woollen Mills, Kanpur, in West Bengal and
\nthey were primarily the dealers in regard to such sales. The appellants
\nwere however sought to be made liable to sales-tax in respect of these
\nsales by virtue of the expanded definition of the term “dealer” given in
\nExplanation 3 to section 2(c) of the Act. The question, therefore, arises
\nwhether the appellants fall within the definition of “dealer” therein
\nmentioned.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 2 to section 2(c) does not apply for the simple reason that
\neven though the appellants were the commission agents of the Mills they had
\nnot in the customary course of business authority to sell goods belonging
\nto the principals. As a matter of fact, Cl. 14 of the Agreement dated June
\n2, 1952, in terms provided that the selling agents shall under no
\ncircumstances whatsoever make or purport to make, or hold themselves out as
\nempowered to make, on behalf of the Mills any contract or contracts for the
\npurchase or supply of any goods manufactured by the Mills. Explanation 3 to
\nsection 2(c) was, therefore, relied upon; but that also would not apply to
\nthe appellants. The appellants were no doubt agents of the Mills which
\n“resided outside West Bengal” but it could not be said of them that they
\ncarried on the business of selling goods in West Bengal. The Mills had
\nneither any office in West Bengal nor had they established any business
\nthrough the appellants or otherwise of selling the goods in question in
\nWest Bengal. The only thing which was done in this connection was that the
\nappellants canvassed orders as commission agents of the Mills in West
\nBengal and forwarded these orders to the Mills, which accepted them and
\nexecuted the same. The privity of contract was established between the
\ncustomers on the one hand and the Mills on the other; but, that also could
\nonly be on the acceptance of these orders by the Mills in Kanpur. Even
\nthough a number of orders placed in this manner by the appellants with the
\nMills were accepted by the Mills in Kanpur, it could not be said that the
\nMills were carrying on business of selling goods in West Bengal. The
\nbusiness was, if at all, one of selling goods in Kanpur and despatching
\nthem to West Bengal for the purpose of consumption therein. These
\ntransactions were, therefore, not covered by the Explanation 3 to section
\n2(c) of the Act and the appellants could not in respect of such business be
\ndeemed to be a “dealer” within the meaning of that explanation. The
\nposition which was adopted by the first respondent, though under the behest
\nof the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) was therefore untenable.A more
\nformidable difficulty, however, faces the first respondent and it is that
\nthe sale price of the goods thus delivered by the Mills to the respective
\ncustomers in West Bengal could not be included in the gross turnover of the
\nappellants. The goods in question were directly supplied by the Mills to
\nthe customers, whether they were supplied in pursuance of the orders placed
\nby the appellants with the Mills or were supplied in pursuance of orders
\ndirectly placed by the customers with them. The invoices were all made out
\nin the names of the customers and the relevant documents were negotiated by
\nthe Mills with the customers through the Banks. The customers released
\nthose documents from the Banks on payment of the relevant drafts and the
\nsale price of the goods was thus received by the Mills through those Banks.
\nAt no time whatever was there any handling of the goods or the receipt of
\nthe sale price thereof by the appellants in regard to the goods in question
\nand under those circumstances the sale price thereof could to be included
\nin the gross turnover of the appellants. If that was the true position, the
\nappellants were not liable to sales-tax in respect of the disputed
\ntransactions, even though, perchance, they could be included within the
\nexpanded definition of “Dealer” in the Explanation 3 to section 2(c) of the
\nAct a contention which we have already negatived.\n<\/p>\n
It, therefore, follows that in regard to the disputed transactions which
\nwere of the total value of Rs. 6, 21, 369-10-3, the appellants were not at
\nall liable to pay sales tax thereupon and the first respondent was clearly
\nin error in assessing the same to sales-tax.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal will accordingly be allowed and the assessment order made by the
\nfirst respondent on January 15, 1955, will be set aside. The sales-tax of
\nRs. 27, 816 assessed by the first respondent on the appellants, if paid,
\nwill be refunded and the appellants will get from the first respondent the
\ncosts of this appeal as also the costs incurred by them in contesting the
\nproceedings before the first respondent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & … on 15 April, 1958 Bench: S.R. Das (Cji), N.H. Bhagwati, S.K. Das, J.L. Kapur, V. Bose CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 344 of 1957 PETITIONER: MAHADAYAL PREMCHANDRA RESPONDENT: COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/04\/1958 BENCH: S.R. DAS (CJI) & […]<\/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-85950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & ... on 15 April, 1958 - 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\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & ... on 15 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958\" \/>\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=\"1958-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-15T10:28:07+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & … on 15 April, 1958\",\"datePublished\":\"1958-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-15T10:28:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958\"},\"wordCount\":3995,\"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\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958\",\"name\":\"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & ... on 15 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1958-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-15T10:28:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & … on 15 April, 1958\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & ... on 15 April, 1958 - 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\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & ... on 15 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1958-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-15T10:28:07+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & … on 15 April, 1958","datePublished":"1958-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-15T10:28:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958"},"wordCount":3995,"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\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958","name":"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & ... on 15 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1958-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-15T10:28:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahadayal-premchandra-vs-commercial-tax-officer-calcutta-on-15-april-1958#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahadayal Premchandra vs Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta & … on 15 April, 1958"}]},{"@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\/85950","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=85950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}