CEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Bombay. It has applied for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ against the respondents, the State of Assam, the Superintendent of Taxes, Shillong and the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, prohibiting them from compelling the petitioner to get itself registered as a dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act and to restrain them from taking any action against the petitioner under the said Act.

(2.) ON 5 -8 -1953, the petitioner received a notice from the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, asking it to get itself registered as a dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act of 1947. This was followed by another notice dated 24 -8 -1953, from the Superintendent of Taxes, Shillong. In that notice, it was claimed by the Superintendent of Taxes that under the provisions of the Assam Sales Tax Act, the State Government was authorised to levy tax from the dealer on all goods despatched to this State for the purpose of consumption. It appeared that the petitioner supplied goods to dealers as well as consumers in Assam for consumption in the State and as such the Superintendent of Taxes claimed that the petitioner was liable to registration and payment of sales taxes under the said Act.

(3.) THE whole point therefore which arises for consideration in the case is whether the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act. If the petitioner is a dealer, then the taxing authorities are entitled to compel the petitioner to get itself registered and to take appropriate proceedings against it under the law on its failure to do so. If, on the contrary, the petitioner is held not to be a dealer then the taxing authorities would have no jurisdiction to proceed against him under the said Act. It is important to remember that the petitioner admits that it supplies cement to dealers and consumers in the State of Assam for the purpose of consumption in the State. It, however, says that the sales actually take place in its various branches outside the State and it is only in pursuance of the sales that the goods are later delivered to the buyers in this State. It is therefore asserted that no transaction of sale or supply is carried on by the petitioner in the State of Assam. As I shall presently show, this assertion is untenable.