{"id":97960,"date":"1954-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954"},"modified":"2015-10-26T05:13:44","modified_gmt":"2015-10-25T23:43:44","slug":"the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954","title":{"rendered":"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 459, \t\t 1955 SCR 1133<\/div>\n
Author: T V Aiyyar<\/div>\n
Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE SALES TAX OFFICER, PILIBHIT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMESSRS. BUDH PRAKASH JAI PRAKASH.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/05\/1954\n\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  459\t\t  1955 SCR 1133\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1955 SC 661\t (88,131,147)\n D\t    1958 SC 452\t (9)\n R\t    1958 SC 560\t (14,21)\n F\t    1958 SC 764\t (5,6,8)\n E\t    1959 SC 135\t (4,27)\n RF\t    1961 SC1065\t (4)\n RF\t    1961 SC1534\t (11)\n R\t    1962 SC1037\t (10)\n F\t    1963 SC1207\t (43,50)\n R\t    1965 SC1082\t (9,14,16)\n RF\t    1967 SC1895\t (247)\n RF\t    1970 SC 898\t (46)\n R\t    1976 SC1016\t (9)\n E\t    1978 SC 449\t (29,42,52)\n D\t    1985 SC1293\t (43)\n RF\t    1986 SC1556\t (4,23,29)\n RF\t    1990 SC 313\t (23)\n\n\nACT:\nGovernment of India Act, 1935, Schedule VII, List II,  entry\nNo.  48-Sale of goods-Meaning of---U.  P. Sales Tax Act\t (Xv\nOf  1948),  s.\t2(h)-Explanation  III  to  s.  2(h)  and  s.\n3B--Ultra vires Provincial Legislature.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nHeld,  that  there is a\t well-defined  and  well-established\ndistinction between a sale and an agreement to sell.\nThe words \"Taxes on the sale of goods\" in entry No. 48, List\nII,  Schedule  VII  of the Government of  India\t Act,  1935,\nconfer\tpower on the Provincial Legislature to impose a\t tax\nonly when there has been a completed sale and not when there\nis only an agreement to sell.\nAccordingly section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act,\nXV  of\t1948, enlarging the definition of \"sale\"  so  as  to\ninclude forward contracts must, to that extent, be  declared\nultra vires.\nFor  the same reason Explanation III to section\t 2(h)  which\nprovides  that\tforward contracts \"shall be deemed  to\thave\nbeen  completed\t on  the date  originally  agreed  upon\t for\ndelivery\" and section 3B of the Act must also be held to  be\nultra vires.\nColley v. Overseas Exporters ([1921] 3 K. B. 302 at 309, 310\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1954.
\nAppeal\tunder  article 133(1) of the Constitution  of  India
\nfrom the Judgment and Decree dated the 28th February,  1952,
\nof  the\t   High\t Court of Judicature at\t Allahabad  in\tWrit
\nApplication No. 7297 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
C.   P. Lal for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t Chatterjee (Radhey Lal Aggarwal, with him) for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
1954.  May 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVENKATARAMA  AYYAR  J.-This is an appeal by  the  Sales\t Tax
\nOfficer, Pilibhit, against the judgment of the High Court of
\nAllahabad  granting firstly, a writ of\tcertiorari  quashing
\ncertain\t assessment orders made against the respondent,\t and
\nsecondly, a writ of prohibition in respect of certain  other
\nproceedings for
\n244<\/span>
\nassessment of tax under the provisions of the Uttar  Pradesh
\nSales  Tax Act (Act XV of 1948).  The respondent is  a\tfirm
\ndoing  business\t in forward contracts, and was\tassessed  in
\nrespect of such contracts to a tax of Rs. 1,082-8-0 for\t the
\nyear  1948-1949\t by  an order  dated  27th  February,  1950,
\nExhibit A, and to a tax of Rs. 7,369 for the year  1949-1950
\nby an order dated 23rd May, 1950, Exhibit B. For the period,
\n1st April, 1950, to 31st January, 1951, the respondent\tpaid
\na  sum of Rs. 845-4-0 as tax.  Assessment  proceedings\twere
\nalso started by the appellant in respect of certain  forward
\ncontracts   relating  to  gur  and  peas.   The\t  respondent
\nchallenged  the\t legality of these proceedings\tand  of\t the
\nassessment orders on the ground that the Act in so far as it
\nimposed\t a  tax\t on forward contracts was  ultra  vires\t the
\npowers\tof the Provincial Legislature.\tThe  learned  Judges
\nagreed with this contention, and issued a writ of certiorari
\nquashing  the orders of assessment, Exhibits A and B, and  a
\nwrit  of  prohibition  in respect  of  the  proceedings\t for
\nassessment of tax on forward contracts in gur and peas.\t The
\nmatter now comes before us in appeal under a certificate  of
\nthe’ High Court under article 133(1) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      Under  the  Government of India Act,  1935,  the\tPro-
\nvincial Legislature derived its power to impose a tax on the
\nsale  of  goods\t under entry 48 in List 11  of\tthe  Seventh
\nSchedule,  and the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, XV of  1948,
\nwas enacted in exercise of this power.\tSection 2(h) of\t the
\nAct defines “sale” as follows :\n<\/p>\n
      “Sale”  means  within its grammatical  variations\t and
\ncognate expressions, any transfer of property -in goods\t for
\ncash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration and
\nincludes forward contracts but does not include a  mortgage,
\nhypothecation, charge or pledge.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  the\t extended definition of\t sale  as  including
\nforward\t contracts  in\tthis section that is  relied  on  as
\nconferring authority on the appellant to make the orders  in
\nExhibits  A and B. The point for decision in this appeal  is
\nwhether the power to impose a tax on the sale of goods under
\nentry  48  includes  a\tpower to impose\t a  tax\t on  forward
\ncontracts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    245<\/span><\/p>\n
Under the statute law of India which is based on English law
\non  the\t subject, a sale of goods and an agreement  for\t the
\nsale  of  goods\t are treated as two  distinct  and  separate
\nmatters.  Section 4 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act (Act III
\nof 1930), runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(1)  “A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby\t the
\nseller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods
\nto  the buyer for a price.  There may be a contract of\tsale
\nbetween one part-owner and another.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.
\n(3)  Where  under  a contract of sale the  property  in\t the
\ngoods  is  transferred\tfrom the seller to  the\t buyer,\t the
\ncontract  is  called a sale, but where the transfer  of\t the
\nproperty  in the goods is to take place at a future time  or
\nsubject\t to some condition thereafter to be  fulfilled,\t the
\ncontract is called an agreement to sell.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  An\t agreement  to\tsell becomes a sale  when  the\ttime
\nelapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the
\nproperty  in  the goods is to be transferred.”
\n  It  will  be noticed that though the section\tgroups\tboth
\nsales  and agreements to sell under the single generic\tname
\nof “contracts of sale”\tfollowing in this respect the scheme
\nof  the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893, it treats  them  as
\nseparate categories, the vital point of distinction  between
\nthem  being  that whereas in a sale there is a\ttransfer  of
\nproperty in the goods from the seller to the buyer, there is
\nnone in an agreement to sell.  When the contract is to\tsell
\nfuture goods, and under section 6(3)of the Sale of Goods Act
\neven  if  “the seller purports to effect a present  sale  of
\nfuture goods, the contract operates as an agreement to\tsell
\nthe goods”, there can be no transfer ‘of title to the  goods
\nuntil  they actually’ come into existence ; and\t even  then,
\nthe conditions laid down in section 23 of the Act should  be
\nsatisfied  before the property in the goods can pass.\tThat
\nwas  also the law under the repealed provisions\t in  Chapter
\nVII  of the Indian Contract.  Act, 1872.  Section 77 of\t the
\nContract Act defined “sale” as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Sale” is the exchange of property for a price.\t It involves
\nthe  transfer  of the ownership of the thing sold  from\t the
\nseller to the buyer.”\n<\/p>\n
246<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 79 enacted that,
\n“Where there is a contract for the sale of a thing which has
\nyet  to be ascertained, made or finished, the  ownership  of
\nthe  thing  is\tnot transferred to the buyer,  until  it  is
\nascertained, made or finished.”\n<\/p>\n
The corresponding provisions of the English Act are sections
\n1, 16 and rule 5 of section 18.\t Section I is as follows:
\n(1)”A  contract of sale of goods is a contract\twhereby\t the
\nseller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods
\nto  the buyer for a money consideration, called\t the  price.
\nThere  may be a contract of sale between one part-owner\t and
\nanother.\n<\/p>\n
(2)A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.
\n(3)Where under a contract of sale the property in the  goods
\nis transferred from the seller to the buyer the contract  is
\ncalled a sale; but where the transfer of the property in the
\ngoods  is to take place at a future time or subject to\tsome
\ncondition thereafter to be fulfilled the contract is  called
\nan agreement to sell.\n<\/p>\n
(4)An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses
\nor  the\t conditions  are  fulfilled  subject  to  which\t the
\nproperty in the goods is to be transferred.”
\nSection 16 enacts that,
\n“Where\tthere  is a contract for the sale  of  unascertained
\ngoods no property -in the goods is transferred to the  buyer
\nunless and until the goods are ascertained.”
\nSection 18, rule 5, provides for the passing of property is
\nfuture goods after they are ascertained.
\nThe  distinction  between a sale and an\t agreement  to\tsell
\nunder  section\t1  of  the English Act\tis  thus  stated  by
\nBenjamin on Sale, Eighth Edition, 1950:\n<\/p>\n
“In order to constitute a sale there must be-
\n(1)An  agreement to sell, by which alone the  property\tdoes
\nnot pass; and
\n(2) an actual sale, by which the property passes. It will be
\nobserved  that the definition of a contract of\tsale,  above
\ncited includes a mere agreement to sell as well as an actual
\nsale.”\n<\/p>\n
247<\/span><\/p>\n
This distinction between sales and agreements to sell  based
\nupon  the passing of the property in the goods is  of  great
\nimportance  in\tdetermining the rights of  parties  under  a
\ncontract.  The position is thus stated in Halsbury’s Laws of
\nEngland, Volume 29, page 15, paragraph 13:
\n“An  agreement\tto  sell,  or, as it  is  often\t stated,  an
\nexecutory  contract of sale, is a contract pure and  simple,
\nwhereas\t a  sale, or, as it is called  for  distinction,  an
\nexecuted contract of sale, is a contract plus a\t conveyance.
\nThus,  by  an agreement to sell a mere jus  in\tpersonam  is
\ncreated, by a sale a jus in rem is transferred.\t Where goods
\nhave been sold, and the buyer makes default in payment,\t the
\nseller\tmay  sue  for  the  contract  price,  but  where  an
\nagreement to buy is broken, usually the seller’s only remedy
\nis  an\taction for unliquidated damages.  Similarly,  if  an
\nagreement  to  sell be broken by the seller, the  buyer\t has
\nonly  a personal remedy against the seller.  The  goods\t are
\nthe property of the seller and he can dispose of them.\tThey
\nmay  be taken in execution for his debts, and if he  becomes
\nbankrupt  they\tpass to his trustee in bankruptcy.   But  if
\nthere has been a sale, and the seller breaks his  engagement
\nto  deliver  the goods, the buyer has not  only\t a  personal
\nremedy\tagainst the seller, but also the  usual\t proprietary
\nremedies  in respect of the goods them selves, such  as\t the
\nactions\t for conversion and detinue.  Again, if there be  an
\nagreement for sale and the goods perish, the loss as a\trule
\nfalls on the seller, while if there has been a sale the loss
\nas a rule falls upon the buyer.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,  there having existed at the time of the enactment  of
\nthe  Government of India Act, 1935, a welldefined and  well-
\nestablished  distinction between a sale and an agreement  to
\nsell it would be proper to interpret the expression sale  of
\ngoods”\tin  entry 48 in the sense in which it  was  used  in
\nlegislation  both in England and India and to hold  that  it
\nauthorises  the\t imposition of a tax only when\tthere  is  a
\ncompleted sale involving transfer of title.
\nThis conclusion is further strengthened, when regard is hood
\nto the nature of the levy, Section 3 of the, Act
\n248<\/span>
\nprovides for a tax being imposed at three pies in the  rupee
\non  the turnover of the assessee, and “turnover” is  defined
\nin  section 2 (i) as “the aggregate of the proceeds of\tsale
\nby  a dealer”, and that would consist of the price  and\t any
\ncharges\t paid at the time of the delivery of the  goods,  as
\nprovided  in Explanation I. The substance of the  matter  is
\nthat the sales tax is a levy on the price of the goods,\t and
\nthe reason of the thing requires that such a levy should not
\nbe  made, unless the stage has been reached when the  seller
\ncan  recover  the  price under the contract.   It  is  well-
\nsettled\t that an action for price is maintainable only\twhen
\nthere  is a sale involving transfer of the property  in\t the
\ngoods to the purchaser.\t Where there is only an agreement to
\nsell,  then the remedy of the seller is to sue\tfor  damages
\nfor  breach of contract and not for the price of the  goods.
\nThe law was thus stated in Colley v. Overseas Exporters(1):
\nIn  former days an action for the price of goods would\tonly
\nlie  upon  one\tor other of two\t counts.   First,  upon\t the
\nindebitatus  count for goods sold and delivered,  which\t was
\npleaded\t as follows: ‘Money payable by the defendant to\t the
\nplaintiff  for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff  to
\nthe  defendants’: Bullen and Leake, Precedents of  Pleading,
\n3rd  ed., p. 38.  This count would not lie before  delivery:
\nBoulter v. Arnott(2).  The count was applicable when upon  a
\nsale of goods the property has passed and the goods had been
\ndelivered to the purchaser and the price was payable at\t the
\ntime of the action brought.  Secondly, upon the\t indebitatus
\ncount  for  goods bargained and sold, which was\t pleaded  as
\nfollows: Money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for
\ngoods bargained and sold by the plaintiff to the defendant’:
\nBullen\tand Leake, p. 39.  This count was  applicable  where
\nupon  a\t sale  of  ‘goods the property\thad  passed  to\t the
\npurchaser  and\tthe  contract  had  been  completed  in\t all
\nrespects except delivery, and the delivery was not a part of
\nthe consideration for the price or a condition precedent  to
\nits payment.  If the property had not passed the count would
\nnot
\nlie: Atkinson v. Bell(3).  In my view the law as to the
\n(1)  [1921] 3 K. B. 302 at 309 310,
\n(2)  (1833) 1 Cr, & M. 333.\n<\/p>\n
(3) (1828) 8 B & C. 277,
\n249<\/span>
\ncircumstances  under which an action will lie for the  price
\nof  goods  has not been changed by the Sale  of\t Goods\tAct,
\n1893.”\n<\/p>\n
That is also the law in this country under section 55 of the
\nSale of Goods Act.  The only exception to this rule is when,
\nunder an agreement between the parties, the price is payable
\non  a day certain irrespective of delivery, and that is\t not
\nmaterial for the purpose of the present discussion.
\nThe position therefore is that a liability to be assessed to
\nsales tax can arise only if there is a completed sale  under
\nwhich price is paid or is payable and not when there is only
\nan  agreement to sell, which can only result in a claim\t for
\ndamages.   It  would be contrary to all principles  to\thold
\nthat  damages  for  breach  of contract\t are  liable  to  be
\nassessed  to  sales tax on the ground that they are  in\t the
\nsame  position\tas sale price.\tThe  power  conferred  under
\nentry 48 to impose a tax on the sale of goods can  therefore
\nbe exercised only when there is a sale under which there  is
\na transfer of property in the goods, and not when there is a
\nmere  agreement to sell.  The State Legislature\t cannot,  by
\nenlarging  the definition of ” sale ” as  including  forward
\ncontracts, arrogate to itself a power which is not conferred
\nupon  it  by  the Constitution Act, and\t the  definition  of
\n“sale”\tin  section  2(h) of Act XV of 1948  must,  to\tthat
\nextent,\t be  declared  ultra vires.  For  the  same  reason,
\nExplanation III to section 2(h) which provides that  forward
\ncontracts  “shall  be deemed to have been completed  on\t the
\ndate  originally agreed upon for delivery”, and section\t 3-B
\nwhich enacts that,
\n“Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  section  3,\t the
\nturnover of any dealer in respect of transactions of forward
\ncontracts, in which goods are not actually delivered,  shall
\nbe taxed at a rate not exceeding rupees two per unit as\t may
\nbe prescribed ” must also be held to be ultra vires.
\nIn  the\t result,  the decision of the  High  Court  must  be
\naffirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed,
\n32<\/span>
\n250<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 459, 1955 SCR 1133 Author: T V Aiyyar Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PILIBHIT Vs. RESPONDENT: MESSRS. […]<\/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-97960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954 - 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\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-25T23:43:44+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T23:43:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954\"},\"wordCount\":2409,\"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\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954\",\"name\":\"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T23:43:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954 - 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\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-25T23:43:44+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954","datePublished":"1954-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T23:43:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954"},"wordCount":2409,"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\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954","name":"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T23:43:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-officer-pilibhit-vs-messrs-budh-prakash-jai-prakash-on-3-may-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit vs Messrs. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash on 3 May, 1954"}]},{"@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\/97960","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=97960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97960\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}