Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
INSTALMENT SUPPLY LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SALES TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD-I & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1974
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
ACT:
Gujarat Sales Tax Act-S. 2(28) whether state could goods
inside the State, but agreement entered into outside the
State.
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 32-When a petition will
lie.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner, a limited company with its registered office
in New Delhi, carries on business of financing purchase of
motor vehicles. The intending buyer of a motor vehicle
enters into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner
company. Under the terms of the agreement the hirer makes
an initial deposit by way of premium as consideration for
granting the lease of the vehicle, which deposit becomes the
absolute property of the company. The hirer undertakes to
pay instalments and when all the instalments are paid the
vehicle becomes the property of the hirer at his option, on
payment of rupee one to the company. Till the completion of
the instalments the vehicle remains the property of the
company as owners but the hirer is responsible for any
damage or destruction or loss of the vehicle. Until the
option is exercised the hirer is at liberty to return the
vehicle and to put an end to the hiring agreement. The
contract of hire purchase was entered into in Delhi,
instalments were paid in Delhi, the option was exercised in
Delhi but the goods were inside the State of Gujarat which
taxed the sale.
Section 2(28) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act which defines
sale enacts sale means the sale of goods made within the
State for cash or deferred payment or other valuable
consideration and includes any supply by a society or club
or an association to its members on Payment of a price or of
fees or subscription but does not include a mortgage,
hypothecation, charge or pledge..... " The explanation to
the definition states "For the purposes of this clause the
sale within the State includes a sale determined to be
inside the State in accordance with the Principles
formulated in sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956." Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 enacts "A sale or purchase of
goods shall be deemed to take place inside a State if the
goods are within the State (a) in the case of specific or
ascertained goods at the time the contract of sale is
made.......
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
On the question whether (1) the State of Gujarat could tax
the sales and (2) whether a petition under Article 32 lies
in this case
Dismissing the petitions,
HELD :-(a) In the present case the sale itself took place
only when the hirer exercised his option to purchase
and that was when the goods were inside the State of Gujarat
and therefore, the State of Gujarat was entitled to levy tax
on that transaction of sale. [392H-393A]
There can be no objection to the incorporation in s. 2(28)
of the Gujarat Act of the definition of sale inside the
State contained in s. 4(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The Gujarat legislation could as well have incorporated the
very words of s. 4(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act in the
explanation to s. 2(28) and in either case it makes no
difference. [392E]
(b) There can be no objection to the State of Gujarat
taxing what according to the Central State Tax Act is a sale
inside the State of Gujarat. There can be no objection to a
State making a sale of goods which are inside the State at
the time the sale takes place liable to sales tax under its
legislation. The fact that the contract of hire purchase
was entered into in Delhi that the instalments were paid in
Delhi and the option itself was exercised in Delhi does not
make any difference to this result. All that it means is
that the
387
agreement of sale was concluded in Delhi whereas the sale
itself was completed by the property in the goods passing in
Gujarat State and the sale therefore,. took place in Gujarat
State. [392F-G]
(c) There can be no objection the State of Gujarat levying
a tax in respect of the same goods even though those goods
may have been subject to tax earlier by the Delhi State.
There is no rule that any goods can be subjected to tax only
once. Even in respect of the same goods sales tax can: be
levied as often as there are sales. [392G-H]
Instalments Supply (p) Ltd. v. Union of India [1962] 2 SCR
644 referred to.
(2) The constitutionality of s. 2(28) of the Gujarat Act
has been, questioned and, therefore, the petition is
’maintainable. An application under Article 32 will lie (1)
where action is taken under a statute which is ultra vires
of the Constitution (2) where the statute is intra vires but
the action taken is without jurisdiction and (3) where the
action taken is procedurally ultra vires as where a quasi-
judicial authority under an obligation to act judicially
passes an order in violation of principles of natural
justice. [1393F-H]
[393 F-H]
Ujjambai v. State of U.P., [1963] 1 S.C.R. 778 followed.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ petition Nos. 129, 131 of
1969.
(Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Ved Vyas, Bishamber Lal, H. K. Puri, P. V. Kapur and S. C.
Patel, for the petitioner.
M. C. Bhandare, G. L. Sanghi, M. N. Siroff and R. N.
Sachthey, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The very same question that arises in these
three petitions, though from a different angle, was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
considered by this Court in an earlier litigation to which
the Petitioner was a party (Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India, [1962] 2 SCR 644.) The question is when does
sale liable to sales tax take place under a hire purchase
agreement. On the earlier occasion it was the Delhi State
that sought to tax certain transactions under hire-purchase
agreements In the present case it is the Gujarat State that
has sought to tax certain transactions under certain hire-
purchase agreements.
The, petitioner is a limited company with its registered
office in New Delhi. It carries on the business of
financing the purchase of motor vehicles. The person
desiring to purchase a motor vehicle enters into a hire-
purchase agreement with the petitioner company. It may be
useful to give within a short compass the terms of the
agreement: The company charges the hirer an initial deposit
by way of premium as a consideration for granting the lease
of the vehicle, which deposit becomes the absolute property
of the company, the premium charged as aforesaid is a
substantial amount, being usually 25% of the prices in
respect of new vehicles. The hirer undertakes to pay
instalments and when all the instalments are paid, the
vehicle becomes the property of the hirer at his option, on
payment of rupee one to the company, as a consideration for
the option; until all the stipulated instalments have been
paid and the option exercised as aforesaid, the
388
vehicle remains the property of the company as owners. The
hirer is delivered possession of the vehicle and he remains
responsible to the company for damage or destruction or
loss. The hirer has to pay interest at the rate of one per
cent per mensem on all sums overdue. Until the option of
purchase is exercised by the hirer he is at liberty to
return the vehicle and to put an end to the hiring
agreement, on certain terms. Thus, under the agreement the
hirer has the use of the vehicle which is entrusted to him
as the property of the company, and it is open to the hirer
to become the purchaser of the vehicle as aforesaid, but he
is not bound to do so.
The liability to sales tax on the earlier occasion arose
under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which was
extended to the State of Delhi. Under section 2(g) of that
Act ’Sale’ means any transfer of property in goods for cash
or deferred payment or other valuable consideration,
including a transfer of property in goods involved in the
execution of a contract, but does not include a mortgage,
hypothecation, charge or pledge. There was an explanation
thereto as follows :
"Explanation I.. A transfer of goods on hire-
purchase or other instalment system of payment
shall, notwithstanding that the seller retains
a title to any goods as security for payment
of the price, be deemed to be a sale."
This Court pointed out that "the definition includes not
only what may be compendiously described as a sale under the
Sale of Goods Act, but also transactions, which, strictly
speaking, are not sales, not even contracts of sale, but
only contain an element of sale, that is the option to
purchase, and that is the reason why the explanation ends
with the words "be deemed to be a sale", thereby indicating
that a legal fiction has been introduced into the concept of
’sale’ as ordinarily understood, and that the explanation
has included within its amplitude a mere transfer of goods
without the transfer of title to the goods."
To the attack oil behalf of the petitioner that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
explanation, in so far as it sought to extend the concept of
’sale’ to what in law was not a real sale, was
unconstitutional, this Court pointed out that in view of its
decision in Mithan Lal’s case (1959 SCR 445) this contention
had lost all its force. In Mithan Lal’s case this Court
upheld the right of Parliament to impose a tax on the supply
of materials in building contracts even though in the State
of Madras v. Cammon Dunkerley, & Co. (Madras) Ltd. (1959 SCR
379) it had been held that ’it could not be done. This was
on the basis that the power of Parliament to legislate in
respect of Part C States is untremmalled by the limitation
prescribed by Art. 246, Cls. (2) and (3), and Entry 54 of
List II, and is plenary and absolute and there is no
restriction which is material to the competency of
Parliament to legislate on this topic. Though this Court
did not say so the reference is obviously to Entry 97 of
List I of the 7th Schedule under which only Parliament would
be competent to legislate in respect of matters which are,
not mentioned in any other entry in the 7th Schedule and
therefore could
389
pass a law which makes a transaction which would not be, a
sale under the Sale of Goods Act a sale for taxation
purposes which a State Legislature would not be competent to
do.
Before we proceed to deal with this case further it would be
useful to clear the ground by bringing out the legal
incidents of a ’sale’ and of hire-purchase agreements.
These have been set out in the decision in the Installment
Supply case (1962 2 SCR 644) as well as another decision of
this Court in Johar & Co. v. C.T.O. (1965 2 SCR 112). We
propose to discuss this question for facilitating the
decision in the present case.
Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act reads as follows
"4.(1) A contract of sale of goods is a
contract whereby the seller transfers or
agrees to transfer the property in goods to
the buyer for a price. There may be a
contract of sale between one part-owner and
another.
(2) A contract of sale may be absolute or
conditional.
(3) Where under a contract of sale the
property in the goods is transferred from the
seller to the buyer, the contract called a
sale, but where the transfer of the property
in the goods is to take place at a future time
or subject to some condition thereafter to be
fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement
to sell.
(4) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when
the time elapses or the conditions are
fulfilled subject to which the property in the
goods is to be transferred."
The definition is the same as in the English Sale of Goods
Act, 1893. The points to be noticed are that the essence of
sale is the transfer of the property in a thing from one
person to another for a prim. The term "contract of sale"
includes an agreement to sell. An agreement to sell is
known as an executory contract of sale, while, a sale is
known as an executed contract of sale. The term "contract
of sale" thus includes both actual sales and agreements for
sale. It is important to distinguish clearly between the
two classes of contract. An agreement to sell is a contract
pure and simple whereas a sale is a contract plus a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
conveyance. By an agreement to sell a jus in personam is
created, by a sale a jus in rein also is transferred. Where
goods have been soId and the buyer makes default, the seller
may sue for the contract price on the count of "goods
bargained and sold", but where an agreement to buy is
broken, the seller’s normal remedy is an action for
unliquidated damages. if an agreement to sell be broken by
the seller the buyer has only a personal remedy against the
seller. The goods are still the, property of the seller,
and he can dispose of them as he likes. But if there has
been a sale, and the seller breaks his engagement to deliver
the goods, the buyer has not only a personal remedy against
the seller, but also the usual proprietary remedies in
respect of the goods themselves. In many cases, too, he,
can follow the goods into the, hands of third parties.
Again, if there be an agreement for sale, and
390
the goods are destroyed, the loss as a rule falls-on the
seller, while, if there has been a sale, the loss as a rule
falls upon the buyer though the goods have never come into
his possession. (Chalmers’ Sale of Goods Act 14th Edn. pp. 4
& 12; Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 34, paras
29 to 31).
A contract of sale should be distinguished from a contract
of hire-purchase. A contract of hire-purchase is properly
speaking a contract of hire by which the hirer is granted on
option to buy but is not, as under a contract of sale, under
a legal obligation to do so. The contract of hire purchase
is one of the variations of the contract of bailment, but it
is a modern development of commercial life, and the rules
with regard to bailments, which were laid down before any
contract of hire-purchase was contemplated, cannot be
applied simpliciter because such a contract has in it not
only the element of bailment but also the element of sale.
At common law the term "hire purchase" properly applied only
to contracts of hire conferring an option to purchase, but
it is often used to describe contracts which are in reality
agreements to purchase chattels by instalments, subject to a
condition that the property in them is not to pass until all
instalments have been paid. The distinction between these
two types of hire purchase contracts is, however, a most
important one, because under the latter type of contract
there is a binding obligation on the hirer to buy and the
hirer can therefore pass a good title to a purchaser or
pledge dealing with him in good faith and without notice of
the rights of the true owner, whereas in the case of a
contract which merely confers an option to purchase there is
no binding obligation on the hirer to buy, and a purchaser
or pledge can obtain no better title than the hirer had.
(Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 19,. para 823,
pp. 510-51 1). These propositions of law have been quoted
with approval by this Court in the two decisions earlier
referred to.
The main point to notice is that in a hire-purchase
agreement there is only an option to purchase and there is
no sale till that option is exercised. It is, however, this
option that was described, based on the statement of law in
Halsbury already referred to, as an element of sale in this
Court’s decision in Instalment Supply case and the Parlia-
ment was held competent to levy a sales tax even though it
was riot a sale within the meaning of the term in the Sale
of Goods Act nor a sale as commonly understood. In Johar &
Co. v. C.T.0. (1965 2 SCR 112) this Court again had to
consider the incidents of a hire-purchase agreement. In
doing so it set out the nature of a typical hire-purchase
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
agreement as distinct from a sale in which the price is to
be paid later by instalments in the following words :
"In the case of a sale in which the price is
to be paid by instalments, the property passes
as soon as the sale is made, even though the
price has not been fully paid and may later be
paid in instalments. This follows from the
definition of sale in s.4 of the Indian Sale
of Goods Act (as distinguished from an
agreement to sell) which requires that the
seller transfers the property in the goods to
the buyer for a price.
391
The essence of a sale is that the property is
transferred from the seller to the buyer for a
price, whether paid at once or paid later in
instalments, on the other hand, a hire
purchase agreement, as its very name implies
has two aspects. There is first an aspect of
bailment of the goods subjected to the hire
purchase, and there is next an element of sale
which fructifies when the option to purchase,
which is usually a term of hire purchase
agreements is exercised by the intending
purchaser. Thus the intending purchaser is
known as the hirer so long as the option to
purchase is not exercised, and the essence of
a hire purchase agreement properly so called
is that the property in the goods does not
pass at the time of the agreement but remains
in the intending seller, and only passes later
when the option is exercised by the intending
purchaser. The distinguishing feature of a
typical hire purchase agreement is that the
property does not pass when the agreement is
made but only passes when the option is
finally exercised after complying with all the
terms of the agreement
The next question that arises is whether a
hire purchase agreement ever ripens into a
sale and if so when. We have already pointed
out that a hire purchase agreement has two
elements : (i) element of bailment, and (ii)
element of sat.--, in the sense that it
contemplates an eventual sale. The element of
sale fructifies when the option is exercised
by the intending purchaser after fulfilling
the terms of the agreement. When all the
terms of the agreement are satisfied and the
option is exercised a sale takes place of the
goods which till then had been hired. When
this sale takes place it will be liable to
sales tax under the Act for the taxable event
under the Act is the taking place of the sale,
the Act providing for a multi-point sales tax
at the relevent time."
This Court thus pointed out that the taxable event is the
sale of goods. and the tax can only be levied when the
option is exercised after fulfilling all the terms of the
hire purchase agreement and that till the sale takes place
there can be no liability to sales tax under the Act.
In the earlier Instalment Supply case (1962 (2) SCR 644) La
which the petitioner was a party what was taxed was not in
reality a sale but only an agreement in which there was an
element of sale Even so, Parliament was entitled to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
legislate treating it as a sale and that is the reason why
this Court upheld the levy. But no State legislature is
competent to enact a legislation which would make a hire-
purchase agreement a deemed sale. It was so held in Johar’s
case by this Court.
In the present case section 2(28) of the Gujarat Act defines
’sale’ as follows :
"Sale" means a sale of goods made within the
State for cash or deferred payment or other
valuable consideration
L 177 Sup CI/75
392
and includes any supply by a Society or Club
or an association to its members on payment of
a price or of fees or subscription, but does
not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge
or pledge; and the word "sell", "buy", and
"purchase" with all their grammatical
variations and cognate expressions shall be
construed accordingly.
Explanation : For the purposes of this clause,
a sale within the State includes a sale
determined to be inside the State in
accordance with the principles formulated in
subsection (2) of principles formulated in
sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Central
Sales Tax Act,, 1955."
As according to the explanation a sale within the State
includes a sale determined to be inside the State in
accordance with the principles formulated in sub-s.(2) of
section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it is
necessary to set out that sub-section here
"4.(2) A sale or purchase of goods shall be
deemed to take place inside a State if the
goods are within the State-
(a) in the case of specific or ascertained
goods, at the time the contract of sale is
made; and
(b).....................
The actual sale in this case fructified only when the hirer
exercised his option to purchase under the hire: purchase
agreement and at that time goods were inside the State of
Gujarat. We see no objection to the incorporation in
section 2(28) of the Gujarat Act of the-definition of a sale
inside a State contained in s.4(2) of the Central Sales Tax
Act. The Gujarat legislation could as, well have
incorporated the very words of s.4(2) of the Central Sales
Tax Act in the explanation to s.2(28) and in either case it
makes no difference. We also see no objection to the
Gujarat State taxing what according to the Central Sales Tax
Act is a sale inside the State of Gujarat. There can be no
objection to a State making a sale of goods which are inside
the State at the time the sale takes place liable to sales
tax under its own legislation. The fact that in this case
the contract of hire purchase was entered into in Delhi,that
the instalments were paid in Delhi and the option itself was
exercised in Delhi does not make any difference to this
result. All that it means is that the agreement of, sale
was concluded in Delhi whereas the sale itself was, if we
may say so, completed by the property in the goods passing
in Gujarat, State’, and the therefore, took place in Gujarat
State. Nor do we see any objection, to Gujarat levying a
tax in respect of same goods even though those, goods may
have been subjected, to tax earlier by the Delhi State.
There is no rule that any goods can be subjected to tax,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
only once even in respect of the same goods sales tax can be
levied as often as there are sales. In the present case
there was really no sale when the hire-purchase agreement
was entered into, though that transaction was made liable to
tax as a result of a legal fiction which the Parliament was
entitled to ’create. The sale itself took place only when
the hirer exercised his option to purchase and that was when
the goods were
393
inside the State. of Gujarat. and therefore the State of
Gujarat was entitled to levy a tax on that transaction of
sale.
We may however point out that the definition of "sale" in
the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act applicable to the State
of Delhi has been amended in 1959 by Act 20 of 1959 and
reads as follows
"Sale", with its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions means any transfer of
property in goods by one person to another for
cash or for deferred payment. or for a
ny other
valuable consideration, and includes a
transfer of goods on hire-purchase or other
system of payment by instalments but does no
include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a
charge or pledge on goods.
Explanation.-Al sale or purchase of goods
shall be deemed to take place inside the Union
territory of Delhi if the goods are within
that territory--
(i) in the case of specific. or ascertained
goods, at the time the :contract of sale is
made; and
(ii) in the case of unascertained or future
goods, at the time of their appropriation to
the contract of sale by the seller or by the
buyer, whether assent of the other party is
prior or subsequent to such appropriation."
This definition is, in effect, the same as the one in the
Gujarat Act. Therefore, the type of transactions which were
subjected to tax in the earlier Instalment Supply case will
not be subject to taxation hereafter and the problem of the
same transaction being subjected to taxation at two
different stages will not arise.
Finally we may refer to an objection taken by Mr. Bhandare
on behalf of the State of Gujarat that no petition under
Art. 32 of the Constitution lies in this case. He relied on
the decision in Ramjilal v. Income-tax Officer,
Mohindergarh’(1951 SCR 127) for this conten But in view of
the decision of this Court in Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (1963 1 SCR 778) we are of opinion that there
is no substance in this contention. It was there held that
"an application under Art, 32 will lie (1) where action is
taken under a statute, which is ultra vires of the
Constitution, (2) where the statute is intra vires but the
action taken is Without jurisdiction, and (3) where the
action taken. is procedurally.ultra vires as Where a quasi-
judicial authority under an obligation to act
judicially passes an order in violation of the principles of
natural justice." The constitutionality of s.2(28) of the
Gujarat Act has been questioned, and therefore the petition
is maintainable.
The petitions are dismissed. There will, however, be no
order as to costs.
P.B.R. Petitions dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
394