Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Government of India Act, 1935
Section 2 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
tion is to impose the tax only when there was a transfer of
title to the goods and not where there is a mere contract of
agency. The Explanation says in effect that where 'there is
in reality a transfer of property by the principal to the
agent and by the agent in his turn to the buyer, there are
two transactions of sale. In our opinion, the phrase "when
the goods are transferred" in cls. (1) and (2) of
Explanation III on a proper construction means "when title
to the goods is transferred" and so construed it is
impossible to say that the Explanation enlarges the scope of
the main section. It was pointed out by this Court in The
State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd.(1)
that the expression "sale of goods" in Entry 48 in List II
of Sch. VII of the Government of India Act, 1935, cannot be
construed in its popular sense but must be interpreted in
its legal sense and should be given the same meaning which
it has in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. It is a nomen juris,
its essential ingredients being an agreement to sell
movables for a price and property passing therein pursuant
to that agreement. In other words, it is necessary for
constituting a sale that there should be an agreement
between the parties for the purpose of transferring title in
the goods, that the agreement must be supported by money
consideration and that as a result of the transaction the
title to the property must actually pass in the goods. As
we have already pointed out, the third Explanation to S. 2
(1) (n) of the Act must be interpreted to mean that where
there is in reality a transfer of property in the goods by
the principal to the agent and by the agent in his turn to
the buyer, there are two transactions of sale. It is
therefore impossible to accept the contention put forward on
behalf of the appellant that the Explanation has converted
what, in fact, is not a sale into a sale for the purpose of
assessment to sales-tax.
1