TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS (INDIA) LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, BIHAR, PATNA.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the proper construction of the Board of Revenue's orders was that the sales tax officer was directed to determine the relief based on the officer's interpretation of the United Motors Case. The Board itself had not definitively decided that every sale with goods delivered outside Bihar was exempt. The Court clarified that the United Motors Case only decided that sales where goods were delivered outside the state for consumption in the state of first delivery were exempt. It did not address sales where goods delivered outside the state were for consumption in other states. For such sales, the previous ruling in the Bengal Timber Case would still apply, making them liable to tax. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to a refund for sales where goods were delivered outside Bihar for consumption in other states. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions was upheld.
What were the facts?
The appellants, Tobacco Manufacturers (India) Ltd., contested the levy of sales tax by the State of Bihar for the financial years 1949-50 and 1950-51. They argued that sales where goods were delivered outside Bihar were exempt under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. Initially, sales tax authorities rejected this, but a revision to the Board of Revenue led to an order allowing exemption for despatches outside the state after January 26, 1950, based on the Supreme Court's decision in the United Motors Case. The appellants sought a refund of tax paid, but the authorities limited refunds to sales where goods were delivered outside the state for consumption in the state of first delivery. The appellants filed for a writ of mandamus, which the High Court dismissed, holding the Board's order was wrongly interpreted.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Board of Revenue's order, directing recalculation of tax payable based on the Supreme Court's decision in the United Motors Case, meant that all sales with goods delivered outside Bihar were exempt from tax. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The Board's order, by referencing the United Motors Case, implied that all sales where goods were delivered outside Bihar were exempt from tax, regardless of where the goods were consumed. They relied on the finality of the Board's orders. Revenue's contention: The Board's order was only intended to apply to sales where goods were delivered outside Bihar for consumption in the state of first delivery, as per the United Motors Case. Sales where goods were delivered outside Bihar for consumption in other states were still taxable under the previous Bengal Timber Case ruling. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of sales tax on transactions where goods were delivered outside Bihar for consumption in states other than the state of first delivery. (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contention: Based on the Board's order, they were entitled to a refund for all sales where goods were delivered outside Bihar. Revenue's contention: Refunds were only due for sales where goods were delivered outside Bihar for consumption in the state of first delivery. The Board's order did not grant exemption for other categories of sales.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Article 286(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] '96° to the non-evacuees; and (2) the payment to the • Admunissa Custodian by the non-evacuees of the money value of ~- Ott.m the share of the evacuees were not available to him. v.
The former in this case was neither claimed nor could The Deputy Gus-the Custodian be expected to pay such a large sum of todian. Evacuee money to the non-evacuees. The order of the Compe- Propedies. tent Officer of March 20, 1956, shows that the non- Dis1ric1 Deoria h & Others evacuee co-s arers were not prepared to pay to the Custodian the money value of the shares of the eva- Kap"' J. cuees. Of the remaining alternatives the third alterna- tive was the partitioning of the property but that also was rn~t possible in the present case because of the nature of the composite property which comprised of a sugar mill which in the very nature of things could not be partitioned. Consequently the only a vai!able mode of separation was the one adopted by the Custodian, i.e., by sale of the property and division of the ~ale proceeds. In the circumstances the action of the Competent Officer could not be termed unreason- able or violative of Art. 19(l)(f
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.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
