R.N. Misra, J. - (1.)DEFENDANT No. 1 in R suit for recovery of money has appealed against the confirming judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur.
(2.)PLAINTIFF was a licensed dealer under the Orissa Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1961 and was required to procure paddy and supply the same to the Union of India under the joint scheme of the State Government and the Central Government. During the relevant period, the Union Government had opened an office at Khurda Road and had appointed the Assistant Director of Food (Defendant No. 2) as its Purchase Officer. Plaintiff supplied rice from Berhampur rail way station between 13 -2 -1965 and 21 -4 -1965 and received payments therefore excepting the sales tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956. When Plaintiff was not paid the sales -tax, at his instance the Purchasing Officer, i.e., the Assistant Director of Food on behalf of the President of India furnished undertakings to Plaintiff to reimburse him in case Plaintiff was made liable to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of these supplies. Plaintiff was assessed to sales -tax and was called upon to repay the same. He deposited the tax on 11.3.1966 and claimed reimbursement in terms of the undertakings. Defendants having failed to pay the same, the suit was instituted on 15.3.1969.
Defendants entered contest by filing separate written statements but raising similar pleas. It was claimed that the Assistant Director of Food at Khurda Road was not the Purchasing Officer and had no authority to bind the Union Government. In the absence of an appropriate contract satisfying the requirements of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution, no liability binding the Union Government could be created. The transactions in question between Plaintiff and Defendants did not constitute sale and, therefore, liability under the Central Sales Tax Act was not attracted. The suit was claimed to be barred by limitation.

(3.)ALL the issues were decided in favour of the Plaintiff and accordingly the suit was decreed. In the lower appellate Court, Defendants' appeal was dismissed and the decree has been upheld. This second appeal has been carried against the concurrent decision of the learned Appellate Judge.