ANWARKHAN MAHBOOB CO Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-1960-9-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 20,1960

ANWAR KHAN MEHBOOB COMPANY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BOMBAY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION MRTP COMMISSION [LAWS(DLH)-1988-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX THE BOMBAY VS. ABDUL REHMAN ALLADIN [LAWS(GJH)-1962-11-11] [REFERRED]
AHMEDABAD SILK FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED THE VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1964-11-19] [REFERRED]
C GOKALDAS AND CO VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1964-11-18] [REFERRED]
JAFARABAD MUNICIPALITY VS. KATHIAWAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1969-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN CANDLE WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES ASSAM GAUHATI [LAWS(GAU)-1988-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFEEQ SHAMEEM AND CO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1964-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL HARGOVINDAS VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1962-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
K CHEYYABBA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1979-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
VENEER MILLS MYSORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UOI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2001-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2001-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. G SANKARAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1986-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. DUNKEN COFFEE MANUFACTURING CO [LAWS(BOM)-1975-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. ANTARYAMI PANIGRAHI [LAWS(ORI)-1981-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM VS. K V BALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-1990-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
N SUNDARESWARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1992-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
J P TOBACCO PRODUCTS VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI [LAWS(MPH)-2009-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
RADIO HOUSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
CHAWARE OIL INDUSTRIES KARANJA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1984-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
HALLMARK TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1997-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
KHAGHHIRAM BHAGRIRAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-1981-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
MAHASHTRA STATE CO OPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LTD VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DHAMANGAON [LAWS(BOM)-1992-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES CALICUT [LAWS(KER)-2006-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
BAGARIA VEGETABLES PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-2000-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
MESSRS CHOHAN PAN BHANDAR VS. ASSTT SALES TAX OFFICER BEAWAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1964-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1978-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY GOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM VS. PIO FOOD PACKERS [LAWS(SC)-1980-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. NADIAD NAGAR PALIKA [LAWS(SC)-2000-3-172] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS CO LIMITED BANGALORE VS. CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE [LAWS(SC)-1961-4-68] [REFERRED]
BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED BELGAUM VS. BELGAUM BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY BELGAUM [LAWS(SC)-1962-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THE CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE COMPANY LIMITED VS. CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO LTD [LAWS(SC)-1976-10-44] [DISTINGUISHED]
KATHIAWAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. JAFFRABAD MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(SC)-1979-8-37] [FOLLOWED]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. B RAGHURAMA SHETTY [LAWS(SC)-1981-3-59] [RELIED ON]
VRAJLAL MANILAL AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1986-4-10] [RELIED ON]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM KERALA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM KERALA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BO VS. A B ISMAIL:PITCHA ALIAS SYED MOHAMMED MUTTON DEALER KOZHINJAMPARA KERALA:V M MOIDEEN MUTTON DEALER EDAPAL KERALA STATE:VEEMBAN KUTTY MUTTON DEALER NADA KAVU VITHANASSERI CHITTUR TALUK KERALA:KARIMBIL MOHAMMOOD MUTTON DEALER MA [LAWS(SC)-1986-4-9] [RELIED ON]
UNION OF INDIA VS. V M SALGAONCAR AND BROS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1998-3-25] [RELIED ON]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. NADIAD NAGARPALIKA [LAWS(GJH)-1991-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
VRAJLAL MANILAL AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1971-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. COCHIN STATE POWER AND LIGHT CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-1971-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. PIO FOOD PACKERS [LAWS(KER)-1978-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF KANHAN-PIPRI DISTRICT NAGPUR VS. STANDING COMMITTEE ZILLA PARISHAD NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-1965-10-10] [REFERRED TO.]
J K SYNTHETICS VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOTA [LAWS(RAJ)-1988-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH KOEL KENDU LEAVES AND MAHULAM LEAVES SOMESHWAR PRASAD CHANDRA KUMAR PANDEY RABINDRA PRASAD AND ARBIND PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1997-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
COCHIN STATE POWER AND LIGHT CORPORATION LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1969-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI METALIKS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
SINNAR BIDI UDYOG LTD. VS. SANGAMNER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-1994-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
KUCHI RAJESWARA SASTRY AND SONS AND ANR. VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-1965-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2013-11-151] [REFERRED TO]
TATA TEA LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-210] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS. PRIYANKA OVERSEAS (P) LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-1988-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE VS. M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LTD. & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. RAGHURAMA SHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-1981-3-42] [REFERRED]
PARTAP STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-360] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Das Gupta, J. - (1.)In this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of Bidis and having its head office at Jabalpur within the State of Madhya Pradesh complains that its fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution have been violated by the illegal imposition of a purchase tax on certain purchases of tobacco made by it in the State of Bombay. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer, Baroda made an order assessing the petitioner to a purchase tax under S. 14, sub-sec. (6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Bom. Act III of 1953) for the period April 1, 1954, to September 29, 1955. The petitioner contends that this assessment was illegal inasmuch, as these transactions are purchases "outside the State of Bombay" within the meaning of Art. 286(1)(a) of the Constitution read with the Explanation and also because these transactions took place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of Art. 286(2) of Constitution. It was also urged that the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, do not authorise the imposition, levy or collection of any purchase tax on the transactions in question.
(2.)It appears that against this assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer on October 18, 1955, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax. This officer set aside the order of the Sales tax Officer imposing a penalty under S. 16(4) but dismissed the appeal against the order of assessment to tax. The order in appeal was made on November 26, 1957. The present petition was filed on August 4, 1958, praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order against the respondents - The State of Bombay, The Collector of Sales Tax, State of Bombay, The Sales Tax Officer, Baroda and the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, Northern Division, Range III, Baroda - preventing them from enforcing the provisions of the Bombay Sales tax Act against the petitioner on the transactions in question, for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the proceedings taken against the petitioner and the orders of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer and the order in appeal by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax and for a declaration that the Act does not authorise the imposition, levy or collection of tax on the transactions in question.
(3.)It will be convenient to consider first the petitioner's contention that the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, does not authorise the imposition of a tax on the purchase of bidi-tobacco. The relevant portion of S. 10(1) which provides for the levy of a purchase tax is in these words:
"there shall be levied a purchase tax on the turnover of purchase of goods specified in column 1 of Schedule B at the rates, if any, specified against such goods in column 4 of the said schedule.....".

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.