MIS. CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P) LTD. vs. C.I.T. WEST BENGAL

CIVIL APPEAL No. 168/1969Supreme Court[1973] 2 S.C.R. 61810 October 1972Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, HANS RAJ KHANNA7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, a private limited company dealing in furniture, also acted as an auctioneer. For the assessment year 1960-61, it collected Rs. 32,986 as sales tax on auction sales, in addition to its commission. This amount was credited to a 'Sales Tax Collection Account' and was neither paid to the exchequer nor refunded to the collectors. The Income Tax Officer held this sum to be part of the appellant's income, similar to its commission. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal initially ruled in favour of the appellant. However, a reference to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act was answered against the appellant.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that an auction sale is a sale for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act. It found that Entry 48 of List II of Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935, grants wide amplitude to the State Legislature's power to impose sales tax on transactions of sale of goods, without restricting it to the owner or purchaser. Therefore, including an auctioneer in the definition of 'dealer' was within the Legislature's competence, and the definition was not ultra vires. The Tribunal reasoned that there is a close and direct connection between an auctioneer and the transaction of auction sale, making the statutory provision for levying sales tax on them valid. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal held that since the sales tax was received by the appellant in its character as an auctioneer, it formed part of its trading or business receipts. The fact that it was credited to a 'Sales Tax Collection Account' was immaterial, as the true nature and quality of the receipt, not its accounting entry, is decisive. The appellant would be entitled to claim deduction upon payment to the State Government. The Tribunal overruled the decision in J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 535) and followed State of Madras v. Cannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. ([1958] 9 S.T.C. 353), K. L. Johar & Co. v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 213), and J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 429).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the definition of 'dealer' in Explanation 2 of Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which includes an auctioneer, is ultra vires the State Legislature's power under Entry 48 of List II, Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935? (Question of law) 2. Whether the amount of Rs. 32,986 collected as sales tax by the appellant as an auctioneer forms part of its taxable income under the Indian Income Tax Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The appellant argued, relying on a Calcutta High Court decision ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 535), that the State Government lacked the legislative competence to include an 'auctioneer' in the definition of 'dealer' under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Therefore, the collected sales tax was not a trade receipt liable to income tax. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue contended that the definition of 'dealer' was within the State Legislature's competence and that the collected sales tax constituted a trading receipt of the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1),Section 2(c),Section 4,Section 64

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

·618 MIS. CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P) LTD. A v. C.I.T., WEST BENGAL October 10, 1972 [K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANN.\, JJ.] Bengal Finance (Saks Tax) .Act, 1941-Whether ".Auctioneer" covered by expressio11 "Dealer'' i11 explanation 2 of Ste. 2(c)-Definitlon of the word "Dtaltr" whether ultra vires the power of the State /egislc.ture under Entry 48, List II, Schedule Vil of Govt. <Jf India Act, 1935-Asuss!C compr.n.v act;ng as autioneer-Amount realised aS shies tax in auction sales and credittd separately under Sales Tax Collection .Account, whether part of appellant's income.

The appellant asse>sce is a priva~• limited. Company dealing in furni- ture and also acts as an auctioneer. 1:11 respect of the sales effected by the appellant as auctionce.r, it reali9•d, during the year in question, in addition to the dommission, Rs. 32,986/. as 'ales tax.

This amount was credited separately in the books under the Sales Tax Collection Account.

This sum was neither paid over l-0 the ex-chequer nor was it refu:llded to the persons from it had been collected. For the year in question, the I.T.O. held that the sum of Rs. 32,9861- was a part of the appel

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →