AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Chennakesav Reddy, Ag. C.J.
The only question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the levy and collection of sales tax on involuntary sales of rice to Food Corporation of India and A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation under the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, is valid. This question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Others, had an occasion to consider the identical question. It held :
"A transaction which is effected in compliance with the obligatory terms of a statute may nevertheless be a sale in the eye of law ....."
The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Chhitter Mal Narain Das Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, submitted that a sale predicates a contract of sale of goods between persons competent to contract for a price paid or promised : a transaction in which an obligation to supply goods is imposed, and which does not involve an obligation to enter into a contract, cannot be called a "sale". But the Supreme Court did not agree with the opinion so broadly expressed in that case. The Supreme Court observed at page 57 in the case of Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1948] 42 STC 31 (SC) :
"We would, however, like to clarify that though compulsory acquisition of property would exclude the element of mutual assent which is vital to a sale, the learned Judges were, with respect, not right in holding in Chhitter Mal Narain Das Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, that even if in respect of the place of delivery and the place of payment of price, there could be a consensual arrangement, the transaction will not amount to a sale."
Therefore we are clearly of the opinion that these cases are governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Others, .
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral application for leaves to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion no substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be considered by the Supreme Court arises in these cases. The oral request is therefore rejected.
Writ petition dismissed.