High CourtDivision BenchAppeal dismissed

Jamana Flour & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1975
Neutral Citation:1987 SCR 1047

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • R.S. Pathak
  • Ranganath Misra
Judgment Date
1987-04-16
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal dismissed; the Supreme Court upheld taxation of gunny bags at 4.5% as part of the net price, recognizing an implied contract for sale of gunny bags along with the products and affirming the Tribunal/High Court findings.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jamana Flour & Oil Mills (P) Ltd.

Respondents

  • State of Bihar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.K. Dhingra
  • • K.B. Rohtagi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • D.N. Goburdhan
  • • D. Goburdhan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jamana Flour & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar concerns levy of sales tax on gunny bags used to pack wheat products under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Roller Mills Wheat Products (Price Control) Order, 1964. For 1964-65, the assessee filed a gross turnover of Rs. 53,39,981; the Assessing Officer accepted this and taxed the sale of wheat products at 2%, but treated gunny bags as a separate turnover of Rs. 1,37,150 taxed at 4.5%. The First Appellate Authority held that adding back the container price to the gross turnover was unjustified, suggesting instead that a portion of the taxable turnover be taxed at a different rate by deducting the bag price (Rs. 0.70 per 100 kg) and taxing the remainder at 2%. On revision, the assessee contended there was no price charged for containers, so differential taxation was unwarranted. The Tribunal found that gunny bags were sold as part of the contract and there was an implied sale of packing material with the wheat products; it directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the turnover of gunny bags and tax it at 4.5%, with the balance at 2%. The Patna High Court agreed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that gunny bag price is included in the net price, recognizing an implied contract for sale of gunny bags and allowing a higher rate for bags under the Roller Mills Order, with costs borne by the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959Roller Mills Wheat Products (Price Control) Order, 1964Section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • The question as to whether there was an agreement to sell packing material was a pure question of fact depending upon the circumstances found in each case (Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 17 STC 624).
  • The Control Order contemplates a net weight, meaning the weight of the bag is included in the price charged by the dealer; where cloth bags are used, a higher price is permissible.
  • Implied contract for sale of packing materials (gunny bags) with the product; packing materials can form part of the bargain and be taxable as a separate commodity.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that gunny bags were mere packing material and no separate price had been charged for them; thus, turnover attributable to bags should not be taxed at a higher rate. They contended that the price charged for wheat products already covered packaging, and there was no independent deduction for bag price, making differential taxation unwarranted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that gunny bags are a separate commodity, capable of sale, with the bags often included as part of the contract for wheat products. It relied on the Roller Mills Price Control Order and prior case law to justify taxing bags at 4.5% when sold with the product, noting an implied contract for sale of packing materials.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Commissioner of Taxes v. Prabhat Marketing Company Ltd.19 STC 84PositiveCited as authority for the principle that the packing materials and net weight concepts can interact with price; supports the view that the question of packing material sale may be determined by precedent if the facts show an implied sale.
Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory v. The State of Andhra Pradesh17 STC 624PositiveUsed to illustrate that whether packing materials are sold as part of the contract is a question of fact depending on circumstances; supports the implied contract finding in this case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jamana Flour & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

JAMANA FLOUR & OIL MILL (P) LTD. A _v._ --1 STATE OF BIHAR APRIL 16, 1987 [R.S. PATHAK, CJ. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J.] B ,.,._ _Bihar Sales Tax Act,_ _1959 and Roller Mills Wheat Products (Price_ _Control) Order, ·1964--Wheat products sold in_ _gunny-bags-Whether_ _gunny bags a different commodity and sale thereof assessable_ _to higher_ _rate_ _of tax-Whether there was contract to_ _sell packing material along_ # -1 with the product-Question of fact depending on circumstances of each c _case._ -\ For the year 1964-65, the assessee, a registered dealer, under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 returned a gross turnover of Rs.53,39,981 which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. He determined the taxable turnover at Rs.52, 79,962 representing the sale of wheat products tax- D able at 2%. He found that the dealer has sold gunny bags in which wheat products had been packed and determined its turnover at Rs.1,37,150 and assessed the same at 4'h%. The First Appellate Authority on assessee's appeal held that the _ .. Assessing Officer was not justified in adding back the price of container E in the gross turnover. What he should have done is,to tax a portion of the taxable turnover at a different rate or out of the turnover taxable, ## "' the price. of bags calculated at the rate of 70 paise per 100 kilogram the taxable turnover at a different rate or out of the turnover taxable, the price. of bags calculated at the rate of 70 paise per 100 kilogram should have been deducted and taxed at the rate of _4'/zo/c._ The remain' ing was to be taxed at the rate of 2%. #### _)._ ' In. the revision before the Tribunal.the assessee contended that the F -" demand of sales-tax payable at different rates on the calculated turnover of gunny bags was not at all warranted as no price had be_en charged .for the containers. The Tribunal held that the lower Courts were justified in levying tax at a different rate on the turnover on account of sale of gunny bags in which the wheat products were sold and directed that the Assessing Officer sh.ould ascertain from the accounts, G ###### --i the turnover on account of sale of gunny bags as container of wheat products during the period under consideration and assess tax thereon at the prescribed rate of 4'/z%. The balance turnover shall be assessed at 2%. In tb~ reference the High Court affirmed this view. Dismissing the appeal, H 1047 _I_ 1048 syPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. The Control Order contemplates a net weight which means that the. weight of the bag is included in the price to be charged by the dealer. Under the explanation when packing is done in cloth· bags, a higher rate is admissible. The scheme clearly suggests that the price .of gunny-bags is inclusive and where cloth-bag Is used, a higher B price over and above what has been provided for ordinary containers is permitted. [l051C-DJ _Commissioner of Taxes_ v. _Prabhat Marketing_ _Company Ltd.,_ 19 STC 84, referred to. 2. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was C implied agreement of sale of the gunny-bags. Admittedly, gunny bags are a different commodity and sale thereof is assessable to tax at_M1>%. It is not disputed that appellant bought gunny-bags for packing wheat products for the purpose of sale. [lOSlCJ ' :I~ The question as to whether there was an agreement to sell D packing material is a pure question of fact depending upon the circum· stances found in each c;.ase. [lOSlG-H] E F G ·4. · The. Tribunal and. the High Court in the instant case, have recorded a clear fmding that there was an implied contract for sale of tthe gunny bags with the products contained therein. [IOSlH] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1975. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1974 of the Patna High Court in Taxation Case No. 21of1970. S.K. Dhingra and K.B. Rohtagi for the Appellants. D.N. Goburdhan and D. Goburdhan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal is by special leave. Challenge herein is to the decision of the Patna High Court rendered on a reference under Section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. The following. question was referred to the High Court for its opinion, by H the.Commercial Taxes Tribunal of Bihar: JAMANA FLOUR _v._ STATE (MISRA, J.) 1049 "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the A _-i_ direction of the Tribunal to ascertain the price of the containers (gunny bags) of wheat. products sold for an allinclusive price under the provisions of the Roller Mills Wheat Products (Price Control) Order, 1964, for taxing the same at a higher rate of 4'12 % is legally valid? B For the year 1964-65, the assessee, a registered dealer ;under the Bihar ·~ Sales Tax Act returned a gross turnover of Rs.53,39,981 which was accepted by the assessing officer. He determined the taxable turnover at Rs.52,79,962 representing sale of wheat products taxable at 2 per ## ;.. cent. He found that the dealer had sold gunny bags in which wheat products had been packed and determined its turnover at Rs.1,37, 150 ###### c and assessed the same at _4'h_ % . ~ The First Appellate Authority on assessee's appeal held: "The learned Assessing Officer was not justified in adding D back the price of container in the gross turnover. What he should have done is to tax a portion of the taxable turnover at a different rate. or in other words out of the turnover taxable under. the Bihar Sales Tax Act, the price of bags _..,. calculated @ Rs.0.70 paise per hundred kilogram should have been deducted and taxed @ 1/2%. The remaining was E to be taxed@2%. The dealer filed a Revision before the Tribunal a.nd contended that the demand of sales-tax payable at different rates on the calculated turnover of gunny bags was not at all warranted as no price had been charged for the containers. The Tribunal found:F _..,I,_ ### ~ "(l) The dealer transferred the property in the gunny bags, the packing material, to the purchasers for price. (2) The price of the gunny bags was included in the consolidated rates of price charged by the dealer. G ,.-1 (3) There was an implied agreement for the sale of gunny bags between the dealer and the different purchasers to whom the wheat products were supplied. ( 4) The transfer of gunny bags was impliedly covered by H the contract of sale with regard to the wheat products. 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. A On these findings the Tribunal held:-" ·"We hold that the learned lower courts were justified in levying tax at a different rate on the turnover on account of sale of gunny bags in which the wheat products were sold." B ##### c D E F G H It further found:-. "The learned Deputy Commissioner has given a direction for determination of the turnover on account of sale of gunny bags. On being asked the applicant accepted that the accounts maintained by him would reveal the exact number of gunny· bags used in the transaction of sale under consideration as also the price of the same. Hence we direct in modification of the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in this behalf that the learned Assessing Officer should ascertain from the.accounts, the turnover on account of sale of gunny bags as container of wheat products during the period under consideration and assess tax thereon at the prescribed rate of _4¥{%._ Th'e balance turnover shall be assessed at 2%" Relial)ce was placed on the provisions of clause (3} of the Roller Mills Wheat Products (Price Control) Order, 1964. That clause provides: "3. _Maximum ex-mill prices of wheat products._ "No owner or other, person in charge of a roller mill shall sell, or offer for sale, ex-mill any of the wheat products specified in column 1 of the Schedule II to this Order (a) .............................................. .' (b) In the State of Maharashtra (excluding Greater Bombay) and in any other State (not being a State specified sub-clause (a), to which this Order applies, at a price exceeding the price specified against the clause 3 thereof. Explanation:-The prices referred to in this clause are: (i) Exclusive of: JAMANA FLOUR _v._ STATE [MISRA, 1.) 1051 (a) ............................................... " A (b) ................................. ' ............. . " (ii) for net weight (inclusive of the cost of the bag), but where wheat products are sold in cloth bags in quantities of B 40 kgs. net, 20 kgs. net and 10 kgs. net, a sum of 70 np. 37 np. and 19 np. respectively, towards the cost of the cloth bag may be charged in addition to the said prices." In our view, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was implied agreement of sale of the gunny bags. Admittedly gunny bags are a different commodity and sale thereof is assessable to C tax at 4'h % . It is not disputed that appellant bought gunny bags for packing wheat products for the purpose of safe. The Control Order contemplates a net weight which means that the weight of the bag is included in the price to be charged by the dealer. Under the explanation when packing is done in cloth-bags, a higher rate is admissible. D The scheme clearly suggests that the price of gunny bags is inclusive and where cloth-bag is· used, a higher price over and above what has been provided for ordinary containers is permitted. This Court in _Commissioner of Taxes_ v. _Prabhat Marketing Com-_ _panyLtd.,_ 19 STC 84 has held:E "In _Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory_ v. _The State_ _of_ _Andhra_ _Pradesh,_ (17 STC 624) it was held by this Court that in a case of this description what the Safes-tax Authorities had to do was to ask and answer the question whether the parties, having regard to the circumstances of F the case, intended to sell or buy the packing materials or - whether the subject-matter of the contracts of sale was only an.exempted article (here exigible to tax at redical rate), and packing materials did not form pa~t of the bargain at all, but were used by the sellers as a convenient and cheap vehicle of transport. " G In that decision it was further pointed out that the question as to whether there was an agreement to sell packing material was a pure question of fact depending upon the circumstances found in each case. The Tribunal and the High Court have recorded a clear finding that there was an implied contract for saie of the gunny bags along with the H products contained therein. 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 2 s. c.n.. A In this Court, the assessee filed an affidavit and produced a com munication purporting to be of the Regional Director (Food), Enstern Region, Government of India, dated July 23, 1957. This not being the part of the record and the affidavit having been filed at a belated stage has got to be rejected. B There is no scope to dispute the assessability of sales-tax on the turnover of gunny bags. This appeal fails and is dismissed. Patties are directed to bear their own costs. A.P.J. Appeal dismissed. ~ _t-_